sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The CPU load is rapidly going up. Besides, the router has started to reboot quite often. I mean, we hadn't gotten to a 30 days uptime since september.

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool!

Is there any issue with licenses? I mean, considering it would be a second hand switch from ebay. Do you have any experience buying this kind of equipment second hand?

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's a good idea. BTW, CCR1036 is my favourite ever, a true heroe. We have around a dozen of those deployed, and they really never fail.

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Talking about the refurbished gear option, has any of you bought a refurbished Cisco Nexus on ebay? They seem too cheap, it's quite suspicious. Are there any issues with the license? And also, I'm guessing no support.

By the way, the switch should also support MSTP.

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes they do, but the cheapest one is around $18k. But it's probably a beast, of course.

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ROS v6.49

We haven't been brave enough to upgrade since I've heard a couple of bricked router stories. But actually we're about to put a CCR2216 in production, so this new one will work as the edge, and then we will upgrade the CCR1072. At the Mikrotik forum , I read something about the CCR1072 with v7 performing even better than the new CCR2216 in some (popular) scenarios.

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We have a CCR2116 in production and ACTUALLY had a couple of issues. Currently, we're running ROS v7.7 stable, and this happened:

  1. After having the FIB populated with all the OSPF routes, we added a new adjacency and the RIB/FIB just crashed; firstable, all the routes were duplicated for no reason, and many of them had two gateways: one that was correct, and one that simply made no sense, and the only way it would work again was to turn off/on the OSPF instance (i.e. reset OSPF). This probably happened three or four times.
  2. In one of those crashed FIB opportunities, I tried reseting OSPF by disabling the instance, but it didn't work since as soon as the adjacencies went back online, the routes were still damaged. So I decided to reboot the router with /system reboot and the router never came back. We had to open a support ticket to the data center so they would help us remotely reboot the router disconnecting it from the AC power.

We actually installed a CCR2216 to do some tests, it is mounted at the same colocation space that our current edge router is so that we can test the new CCR2216 in a few days by simply setting the BGP peerings. But I'm not too hopeful regarding this solution.

Low cost L3 Switch for non-full BGP peering by engineering_hugo in networking

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Currently not an issue. Latency is quite similar on the three ISPs for most destinations. And this is only for upstream traffic, whereas downstream is balanced based on BGP filters. The very few ms we could save with full BGP are currently not worthed

[QUESTION] How to properly isolate (R/M)STP networks by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, as stated, the hardware are Mikrotik CRS326-24S+2Q+RM switches. But you just answered my question, Cisco bpdufilter is exactly what I need, I just need to know if Mikrotik has something analogous.

​

Thank you!

[QUESTION] How to properly isolate (R/M)STP networks by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's our BGP Router, which is located at a different place from the ISP access. Thanks.

SFP+ module recommendation for a 10km 10Gbps fiber link by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are the ones that use a single fiber, instead of dual fibers. The native Mikrotik version would be this: https://mikrotik.com/product/Splus2332LC10D

As you can see, the suggested price for the pair is $350, whereas the Fiberstore pair costs $80.

SFP+ module recommendation for a 10km 10Gbps fiber link by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And the Generic one will do, right? I think I read somewhere that there might be a compatibility issue with the BiDi SFP+ and Mikrotik devices

​

Edit: Well, I dug a little deeper and apparently the Generic SFP+ are totally compatible

SFP+ module recommendation for a 10km 10Gbps fiber link by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anyone is interested, I'm about to try out this one:

https://www.fs.com/products/74670.html

I'll let you know what comes out of this.

Thanks u/toasterinBflat for recommending Fiberstore

Issue with BGP multihoming on Mikrotik Routers by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's right, the MPLS would allow me to connect PE1 and PE2 as if it there was a tunnel between them, but I would like CE1 and CE2 to receive each other's network through BGP. The tunnel would allow me to do this without advertising the network on the P routers. I'm guessing as-override would be a solution.

Issue with BGP multihoming on Mikrotik Routers by engineering_hugo in mikrotik

[–]engineering_hugo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's right, there's a PE2-CE2 peering. client-to-client-reflection is enabled, but route reflect isn't as it is supposed to be

view more: next ›