<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>HI,</p>
<p>ASR seamless fail-over is not as seamless as it marketed. There are lots of caveats. For PE redundancy we just run two BGP sessions between CE and two different PE. But PE is hardly a weakest link, services usually fails due to access link. </p>
<div>---<br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">NEXON - I.T. FOR THE DYNAMIC BUSINESS<br /> Paul Holmanskikh<br /> Senior Network Engineer<br /> <br /> Disclaimer: The contents of this email represent my own views and not necessarily the views of my employer</div>
</div>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 25/05/2017 21:13, Ryan Tucker wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div dir="ltr">I'd be interested in an answer to this as well.
<div> </div>
<div>The ASR1006 apparently does multiple physical route processors with fast failover for seemingly this purpose, but I'm not aware of anything smaller/cheaper/more vendor agnostic (and VRRP just doesn't scale to "many" interfaces as mentioned above).</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, 25 May 2017 at 21:05 Sam Silvester <<a href="mailto:sam.silvester@gmail.com">sam.silvester@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Doesn't give you a specific answer so apologies if not useful to your situation but in past teams I've seen the following kind of things done. <br /><br />- We matched the customer SLA to the 'lowest common denominator' of the access link, or the aggregation router (generally we had 24x7x4 hour hardware replacement, so we doubled that to give time to install and reconfigure e.g. 8 hours restoration ETA). Often there was a switching layer between the assorted backhaul providers and the aggregation PE so the option also existed to re-provision customers but that was never really something we planned to do.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> </div>
<div class="gmail_extra">- We ran multiple boxes, so we spread the impact of hardware outages (and upgrades). If a customer wanted higher availability, we provisioned them two links on two different aggregation boxes and ran HSRP or BGP sessions with them.<br /><br />Single boxes failing wasn't something that kept me up at night to be honest, it's empirical but we had more failures with backhaul providers and customer premises losing power than we ever had routers shit themselves in either a hardware or software fashion. We tended to not run lots of complicated features on the one box, again we tended to build out at least a pair of aggregation edge devices for each type of service (PPP, colocation, business services etc)</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br /><br />Sam<br /><br /><br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Matt Selbst <span><<a href="mailto:matt.j.selbst@gmail.com">matt.j.selbst@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Yes indeed I'm talking about the aggregation router failing.
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps clustering multiple chassis although I don't know any Cisco agg routers that can do that.
<div>
<div class="m_-2680653295882815263h5"><br />
<div><br />
<div class="gmail_extra"><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Sam Silvester <span><<a href="mailto:sam.silvester@gmail.com">sam.silvester@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">Hi Matt,</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Matt Selbst <span><<a href="mailto:matt.j.selbst@gmail.com">matt.j.selbst@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,
<div> </div>
<div>Hoping for some advice. What is everyone doing for terminating point-to-point Ethernet services like AAPT's e-Line in a high availability environment? Cisco environment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With PPPoE, high availability was much easier as you could just have multiple LNS's and failover easily when the client would re-auth. With terminating a VLAN handoff on a /30 or /31 it makes HA much harder. If the customer edge router dies, failover seems pretty hard. VRRP doesn't seem to be an option especially with hundreds of customer sub-interfaces.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Do you mean HA on the customer side or on your side?<br /><br />e.g. I assume you mean you want to protect against when your aggregation router dies, as obviously the P2P Ethernet service is kind of a single point of failure in and of itself, as is the CPE...</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br /> AusNOG mailing list<br /> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br /> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">_______________________________________________<br /> AusNOG mailing list<br /> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br /> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>