[AusNOG] Router on a stick for a production environment

[McDonald Richards]

Most of these caveats are around the use of gigabit ether-channel
interfaces. If you're using standard dot1q ethernet sub-interface you can
push the HQOS pretty hard.

One of their guys on the ASR1K team explained it as having to modify, test
and validate every single feature on the already massive feature set if
people wanted GEC support as well (think of scenarios like dual-stack PPP
interfaces running per-subscriber QOS terminating on an l2tp tunnel that
goes over a GEC with more QOS).

Macca


On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It depends. If you look over the as1k config guide, there's caveats for
> qos. But it's about more than qos. It's about feature parity (which varies
> by platform/code release). Better to have the extra interface than discover
> you need to recable your production environment.
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 29 April 2015 at 22:25, Tim Raphael <raphael.timothy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Which platform specifically are you talking about? I know for sure the
>> Juniper MXs and Cisco ASR1Ks can do shaping and policing on IFLs /
>> Sub-interfaces just fine.
>>
>> - Tim
>>
>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 7:56 pm, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Don't do it. There are many configuration items (eg. policing/shaping)
>> which will not work with virtual interfaces.
>>
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>> On 29 April 2015 at 09:44, James Mcintosh <james.mcintosh at rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Noggers,
>>>
>>> Are any of you out there running "router on a stick" in your production
>>> environments?
>>>
>>> Traditionally this was only set up in lab/test environments but given
>>> how expensive 10Gbps+ adapters are from some vendors, and that additional
>>> adapter capability often forces you up to their next most expensive router
>>> models is there any reason not to run it in production?
>>>
>>> Most ISP's already run hundreds or even thousands of sub-interfaces per
>>> physical interface so is there any tangible downside to to just using a
>>> single physical interface for all the in/out connectivity to your router?
>>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150429/fee4804a/attachment.html>