[AusNOG] High availability options for terminating point-to-point Ethernet (on Cisco CE)

Fri May 26 16:19:33 EST 2017

If you ordered each service as VPLS (three sites - customer, PE1, PE2) 
rather than ethernet pseudowires you could have them land on two 
routers, but the cost would probably blow out - you'd be better off 
getting a second link and full-path redundancy.
Andrew

On 26.05.2017 15:54, Michael J. Carmody wrote:
> More of a general sense, we get Layer 2 handoff as VLAN’s at POI’s
> from PIPE/AAPT/Vocus/Amcom/Intellipath/Megaport.
>
> I just want two of them for redundancy.
>
> Again assuming network as weakest point, is not our issue here, I
> just want to handle switch failure at my end. So I want 2 x POI’s
> going to 2 different switches, with some dump as hell loop prevention
> as braindead as (R)STP in place.
>
> Am I being too KISS here?
>
> -Michael
>
> FROM: Sam Silvester [mailto:sam.silvester at gmail.com]
>  SENT: Friday, 26 May 2017 3:48 PM
>  TO: Michael J. Carmody <michael at opusv.com.au>; 
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>  SUBJECT: Re: [AusNOG] High availability options for terminating
> point-to-point Ethernet (on Cisco CE)
>
> Idle curiousity - what's wrong with Layer 3 redundancy & why would
> you want L2 spanning sites instead?
>
> How would you propose to handle loop prevention between the
> wholesaler and yourself?
>
>  On Friday, 26 May 2017, Michael J. Carmody <michael at opusv.com.au> 
> wrote:
>
>> I always wanted to have duplicate POI’s and have the layer-2 VLAN 
>> appear on both of them, then just different switches for each POI.
>>
>> This though is a product feature I have never been able to find.
>>
>> Fear of loops from the wholesaler?
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>> FROM: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] ON BEHALF OF 
>> Matt Selbst
>> SENT: Friday, 26 May 2017 10:56 AM
>> TO: Paul Holmanskikh <ausnog at pkholm.com>
>> CC: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> SUBJECT: Re: [AusNOG] High availability options for terminating 
>> point-to-point Ethernet (on Cisco CE)
>>
>> I'm surprised that everyone's default answer is basically "Don't 
>> worry about the hardware, the network is the most likely thing to 
>> fail". I totally get that and agree. But in a carrier environment you 
>> want to be able to honestly say to customers "we're full redundant". 
>> If a point-to-point ethernet service terminates on a single piece of 
>> hardware then you can't really make that statement. How are the bigger 
>> carriers handling this? I'm especially interested in this as it 
>> relates to a Cisco environment. At what level and what cost can you 
>> have a true HA solution?
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Paul Holmanskikh 
>> <ausnog at pkholm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> HI,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> NEXON - I.T. FOR THE DYNAMIC BUSINESS
>>> Paul Holmanskikh
>>> Senior Network Engineer
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: The contents of this email represent my own views and 
>>> not necessarily the views of my employer
>>>
>>> On 25/05/2017 21:13, Ryan Tucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in an answer to this as well.
>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2017 at 21:05 Sam Silvester 
>>>> <sam.silvester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> - 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> - 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Matt Selbst 
>>>>> <matt.j.selbst at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes indeed I'm talking about the aggregation router failing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps clustering multiple chassis although I don't know any 
>>>>>> Cisco agg routers that can do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Sam Silvester 
>>>>>> <sam.silvester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Matt Selbst 
>>>>>>> <matt.j.selbst at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you mean HA on the customer side or on your side?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog [1]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog [1]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog [1]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog