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

Fri May 26 16:27:45 EST 2017

STP is probably not a good fit for this.

On the carrier side it can be done with redundant PW and VPLS multi-homing
etc etc. Telstra Wholesale just notified me about that exact setup for
Ethernet access.

Then on the customer side you could just have a dynamic routing protocol or
other mechanism waiting for the failover. Tested regularly of course ;) Or,
if you are moving the layer 2 elsewhere the same as the carrier side would
cover it.

Carriers don't want to give you a way to create loops and also they get to
make you pay for another circuit. Win.

On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 15:55, Michael J. Carmody <michael at opusv.com.au>
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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-- 
Regards,

Mark L. Tees
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170526/3695eff1/attachment.html>