MPLS VPN Supported Platforms

Does the 3745 router support MPLS VPN?

ignore this message - brain fade - I was talking about the 3750ME

Similar Messages

MPLS VPN support for VPNv6

All,
which routers and IOS has MPLS VPN support for VPNv6?
regards
Devang Patel

Hello Devang,
in the feature navigator look for the 6VPE feature for example a C7609 with sup720 3BXL and IOS 12.2(33)SxHa2 has the vpnv6 address-family.
see for example
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-ov_mpls_6vpe.html
you still need an MPLS/Ipv4 core or an ipv4 core if using GRE tunnels:
Table 1 Feature Information for Implementing IPv6 VPN over MPLS
Feature Name Releases Feature Information
IPv6 VPN over MPLS (6VPE)
12.2(28)SB
12.2(33)SRB
12.4(20)T
The IPv6 VPN (6VPE) over a MPLS IPv4 core infrastructure feature allows ISPs to offer IPv6 VPN services to their customers.
This entire document provides information about this feature.
MPLS VPN 6VPE support over IP tunnels
12.2(33)
SRB1
This feature allows the use of IPv4 GRE tunnels to provide IPv6 VPN over MPLS functionality to reach the BGP next hop.
This following sections provide information about this feature:
â¢6VPE Over GRE Tunnels
Hope to help
Giuseppe

Can L2-MPLS VPN support point-to-multipoint?

thanks

My excuses to waris, you are correct. The current implementation of EoMPLS only supports point-to-point.
Here's a URL that should help you configuring VPLS:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/cis7600/cfgnotes/optical/122sx/mpls.htm#1231821
Hope this helps,

MPLS VPNs alongwith T1 and sub-rate SONET/SDH connections

Hi,
I know this question might seem out of place in this particular forum, I apologize for that.
We currently offer MPLS VPN services on my Cisco 7600 platform with supported FE/GE modules.
Coming to my question, can I offer DS0/T1 services without adding a new optical (SONET/SDH) box and on the same 7600 (I have enough slots available)
I was thinking of this particular module for delivering the required additional services:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/install_config/12.2SX_OSM_config/Prtn.html
and
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/install_config/12.2SX_OSM_config/crns.html
Is anyone of you guys doing something similar?
I would request for some inputs w.r.t. stability and/or other factors I should consider before I start to seriously think of them as an alternative option instead of going for separate Optical devices.
P.S.: This is not MPLS VPNs on subrate interfaces but subrate/T1 'IPLC' service by itself.
Thanks
Cheers
~sultan

No, you will need to put an additional module to support DS0/T1 services on your 7600. Following link may help you
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2831/products_data_sheet09186a008015cfe9.html

Performance end to end testing and comparison between MPLS VPN and VPLS VPN

Hi,
I am student of MSc Network Security and as for my project which is " Comparison between MPLS L3 VPN and VPLS VPN, performance monitoring by end to end testing " I have heard a lot of buzz about VPLS as becoming NGN, I wanted to exppore that and produce a comparison report of which technology is better. To accomplish this I am using GNS3, with respect to the MPLS L3 VPN lab setup that is not a problem but I am stuck at the VPLS part how to setup that ? I have searched but unable to find any cost effective mean, even it is not possible in the university lab as we dont have 7600 series
I would appreciate any support, guidence, advice.
Thanks
Shahbaz

Hi Shahbaz,
I am not completely sure I understand your request.
MPLS VPN and VPLS are 2 technologies meant to address to different needs, L3 VPN as opposed as L2 VPN. Not completely sure how you would compare them in terms of performance. Would you compare the performance of a F1 racing car with a Rally racing car?
From the ISP point of view there is little difference (if we don't want to consider the specific inherent peculiarities of each technology) , as in the very basic scenarios we can boil down to the following basic operations for both:
Ingress PE impose 2 labels (at least)
Core Ps swap top most MPLS label
Egress PE removes last label exposing underlying packet or frame.
So whether the LSRs deal with underlying L2 frames or L3 IP packets there is no real difference in terms of performance (actually the P routers don't even notice any difference).
About simulators, I am not aware of anyone able to simulate a L2 VPN (AtoM or VPLS).
Riccardo

Ask the Expert:Concepts, Configuration and Troubleshooting Layer 2 MPLS VPN – Any Transport over MPLS (AToM)

With Vignesh R. P.
Welcome to the Cisco Support Community Ask the Expert conversation.This is an opportunity to learn and ask questions about concept, configuration and troubleshooting Layer 2 MPLS VPN - Any Transport over MPLS (AToM) with Vignesh R. P.
Cisco Any Transport over MPLS (AToM) is a solution for transporting Layer 2 packets over an MPLS backbone. It enables Service Providers to supply connectivity between customer sites with existing data link layer (Layer 2) networks via a single, integrated, packet-based network infrastructure: a Cisco MPLS network. Instead of using separate networks with network management environments, service providers can deliver Layer 2 connections over an MPLS backbone. AToM provides a common framework to encapsulate and transport supported Layer 2 traffic types over an MPLS network core.
Vignesh R. P. is a customer support engineer in the Cisco High Touch Technical Support center in Bangalore, India, supporting Cisco's major service provider customers in routing and MPLS technologies. His areas of expertise include routing, switching, and MPLS. Previously at Cisco he worked as a network consulting engineer for enterprise customers. He has been in the networking industry for 8 years and holds CCIE certification in the Routing & Switching and Service Provider tracks.
Remember to use the rating system to let Vignesh know if you have received an adequate response.
Vignesh might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Remember that you can continue the conversation on the Service Provider sub-community discussion forum shortly after the event. This event lasts through through September 21, 2012. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.

Hi Tenaro,
AToM stands for Any Transport over MPLS and it is Cisco's terminology used for Layer 2 MPLS VPN or Virtual Private Wire Service. It is basically a Layer 2 Point-to-Point Service. AToM basically supports various Layer 2 protocols like Ethernet, HDLC, PPP, ATM and Frame Relay.
The customer routers interconnect with the service provider routers at Layer 2. AToM eliminates the need for the legacy network from the service provider carrying these kinds of traffic and integrates this service into the MPLS network that already transports the MPLS VPN traffic.
AToM is an open standards-based architecture that uses the label switching architecture of MPLS and can be integrated into any network that is running MPLS. The advantage to the customer is that they do not need to change anything. Their routers that are connecting to the service provider routers can still use the same Layer 2 encapsulation type as before and do not need to run an IP routing protocol to the provider edge routers as in the MPLS VPN solution.
The service provider does not need to change anything on the provider (P) routers in the core of the MPLS network. The intelligence to support AToM sits entirely on the PE routers. The core label switching routers (LSRs) only switch labeled packets, whereas the edge LSRs impose and dispose of labels on the Layer 2 frames.
Whereas pseudowire is a connection between the PE routers and emulates a wire that is carrying Layer 2 frames. Pseudowires use tunneling. The Layer 2 frames are encapsulated into a labeled (MPLS) packet. The result is that the specific Layer 2 service—its operation and characteristics—is emulated across a Packet Switched Network.
Another technology that more or less achieves the result of AToM is L2TPV3. In the case of L2TPV3 Layer 2 frames are encapsulated into an IP packet instead of a labelled MPLS packet.
Hope the above explanation helps you. Kindly revert incase of further clarification required.
Thanks & Regards,
Vignesh R P

Managing Route-Map based MPLS VPN

1) How to derive the VPN information of the MPLS VPN configured using route-maps? As I understand, stitching route-maps information to derive VPN is complex as it is difficult to derive & correlate the filters tied to each of the route-maps that are tied to a VRF :(
2) Is there any MIB to get from the MIB
a) Route-maps tied to each VRF
b) What is the filter associated with each route-map?
c) Definition of each of the above filter
It would have been nice if the route-maps' name had global-significance within AS, so that we could have treated route-maps, pretty much like the route-tragets. Alas, I doubt it is :(
It should be noted here that if the MPLS VPN is configured using route targets, the VPN information derivation is fairly straight forward throught MplsVpn MIB.
So, the question is what is the simplest way to derive the MPLS VPN info given that they are configured using route-maps in BGP for labelled-route-distribution & for the pkt association with the VRFs.
Thanks,
Suresh R

Each CE in a customer VPN is also added to the management VPN by selecting the Join the management VPN option in the service request user interface.
The function of the management route map is to allow only the routes to the specific CE into the management VPN. The Cisco IOS supports only one export route map and one import route map per VRF.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/netmgtsw/ps4748/products_user_guide_chapter09186a0080353ac3.html

Mapping Model in MPLS VPNs

Hi:
Based on paper titled "L3 MPLS VPN Enterprise Consumer Guide" page 52, figure 44. (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/netsol/ns465/networking_solutions_white_papers_list.html).
1) The figure discards the "streaming video" and "bulk data" traffics within the mapping process. Why? What happens with these traffics? Both traffics are discarded or simply they need to be mapped to "Best Effort"? Please explain.
2)In the same figure, "Interactive Video" is mapped to "Realtime" SP class with "Voice" traffic. Is this "Interactive Video" traffic always no TCP-based? If the opposite is true, why is it mixing TCP & UDP over the same "Realtime" class?

Hi,
That articles mentions that these protocols tend to use transport-layer protocols such as UDP and RTSP. That is true but there are a lot of different streaming protocols around and some of them do use TCP. In fact, even RTSP supports the use of TCP. And you can also stream via HTTP (Windows Media supports this, for example).
So you see, there can be a mix of TCP and UDP traffic here.
The other, more critical, reason for not mixing interactive-traffic with streaming (one-way) traffic is the drastically different jitter/latency requirements for the two. Streaming traffic will easily sustain latency in the order of seconds and jitter is not even a problem. Whereas interactive traffic will not. That is why you should not mix the two.
Hope that helps - pls rate the post if it does.
Paresh

MPLS VPN L3 BGP to Customer CPE

Hello,
I am learning how to setup MPLS VPN L3. I am running OSPF in the MPLS Core and have configured MP-BGP between PE. I am running BGP between the PE and CPE in my lab, and I can see redistributed routes from the CPE in the vrf routing table for that customer on the PE router. My question is how to reditribute the vrf routes into my MPLS core to transmit the traffic to the customer other site on the same vpn. Below is what my config looks like.
PE
ip vrf customerA
rd 100:101
route-target export both 100:1000
int fa0/0
ip vrf forwarding customerA
ip address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
router ospf 1
loopback in area0
networks in area0
router bgp 65000
neighbor to other PE routers in AS 65000 (MPLS Network)
address family vpn4
neighbor other PE routers activate
neighbor other PE routers send community
ip address ipv4 vrf customerA
neighbor to customerA in AS 55000
CPE
router ospf 1
loopback in area 0
networks in area 0
router bgp 55000
neighbor to PE router in AS 65000
redistribute ospf 1

Hi
You dont have to redistribute your routes into mpls core. The vpnv4 bgp session that you have has already sent your ce routes to the remote pe router, provided you have the vrf configured on the other end.
For more detaiked explanation please check a presentation available in the current running Ask The Expert event in the support community.

Configuring MPLS VPN using static routing

Hi,
I am managed to set up a BGP/MPLS VPN in a laboratory using CS3620 routers running IOS 12.2(3) with ISIS. I am thinking of using static routes among the PE and P routers instead of a IGP. Does anyone know if Cisco routers supports static configuration of LSP? I have tried but could not get it work.

You can very well run MPLS with static routing in the core, as in Cisco we have to meet 2 criterias to have a MPLS forwarding Table.
1) Creating the LIB
This thing lies in having LDP neighborship netween two peers and you have Label bindings.
This is irrespective of what is the best next hop to reach the advertising peers LDP_ID.
2) Creating the LFIB
Now after considering all the Label bindings, the LDP_ID which can be reached out an interface
as a next hop, those Label bindings get installed in the LFIB.
So considering the above two points, we have to be careful in static routes
only for interfaces like Ethernet (Multiaccess Segments).
As in CEF when you give a static route pointing to an Ethernet Interface, CEF creates a
GLean Adjacency (Meaning there could be multiple hosts as the next hop on this segement, and it will glean for the right next-hop)
Now you may observe that when you give a static route only pointing to an Ethernet interface,
you LDP adjacency may come up and you may exchange the bindings with each other. But the Label Forarding Table is not created. This is bcos of this being a Multiaccess interface. And you have
Glean For it. If its a Normal WAN interface like Serial or POS, then there is no problem of
GLean and you would have a Valid Cached Adjacency.
So to avoid probelems with Ethernet interfaces you can simply specify the next-hop-ip address.
For Eg: ip route 10.10.31.250 255.255.255.255 10.10.31.226 (Without the Interface)
ip route 10.10.31.250 255.255.255.255 fa0/0 10.10.31.226 (Or with the Interface)
Only Difference in both is in the first one it has to do a recursive lookup for the outgoing interface. Otherwise both work well. And you can have static routes in your network
running MPLS.
And doing this CEF would would work as it should and you would have a Valid Cached Adjacency.
So this is applicable for Cisco devices which use CEF, including 6500 with SUP720.
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop

Unable proxy ping using CISCO-PING-MIB in MPLS VPN ?

using CISCO-PING-MIB in MPLS VPN ?
In CISCO-PING-MIB.my document, wu can use the CISCO-PING-MIB to
Proxy ping the hosts in the MPLS VPN (vrf).
But when i do it, router will return the message:
errstat =12; errindex = 1(ciscoPingProtocol).
If Router isn't configed vrf, can proxy ping.
If set the error vrf name in snmp packet,
errstat=10; errindex=8(vrfname)
Do Cisco Support Proxy ping with vrf???

sorry, i don't use unix station, i program to send snmp messages.
parameters:
ciscoPingProtocol = 1(IP);
ciscoPingAddress =x.x.x.x;
ciscoPingPacketCount=
ciscoPingPacketSize=
ciscoPingPacketTimeout=
ciscoPingDelay=
ciscoPingEntryStatus=4;
ciscoPingVrfName="vpn1";
The parameters is right, because when i don't use ciscoPingVrfName, i can
ping the address.
But i set the ciscoPingVrfName="vpn1", the error is received.
thanks.

MPLS CE support on Cisco 2800 ISR router

Hi all, could I ask you for some hints about MPLS CE support on Cisco 2800 ISR router today? I`m finding restrictions and recommendations for feature implementation. Do you have any cisco web site about them?
Thank you for your advice and/or hints.
Peter

Thanks for an answer. I need to use multi-VPN model on CE router, but with QoS on one physical CE-PE connection (e.g. Frame-Relay DLCI).However, all VPNs on CE router must be secured for each one. The solution is Multi-VRF service feature, but, however, with multi-DLCI model on Frame-Relay and QoS per DLCI. Now, I`m finding a scenario to provide multi-VPN model on CE router with single-DLCI model and single QoS per one DLCI for all VPNs. And that, MPLS CE feature on C2800 could be used, if possible.
So, I don`t know more about MPLS CE on C2800 and I don`t know make a result to propsed solution...

What RFC for MPLS is supported?

Hi,
does anybody know what rfc's regarding mpls are supported by cisco (f.e. ASR9000 or Nexus 7000)?
TiA,
Stephan

Hi Stephan,
this is the list for ASR9k:
RFC 2547, BGP/MPLS VPNs
RFC 2702, Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 2858, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4
RFC 3031, Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
RFC 3032, MPLS Label Stack Encoding
RFC 3063, MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
RFC 3140, Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes
RFC 3270, Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services (E-LSPs only)
RFC 3443, Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks
RFC 3469, Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery
RFC 3564, Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 4124, Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 4125, Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 4127, Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 4379, Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures.
RFC 3815, Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
RFC 4448, Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks
RFC 5462, Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field.
HTH,
Ivan.

Injecting Global default Routes into a MPLS VPN

Hi,
I have a PE router running MPBGP which receives two default routes to the internet through an IPV4 BGP session. I need to import these routes in to a VRF and export them to different customer VRFs so that these VRFs are able to access Internet.
I have used the feature called "BGP Support for IP Prefix Import from Global Table into a VRF Table" (URL:http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00803b8db9.html#wp1063870)
and imported these routes into a VRF.
The issue is these routes are not propagated to any of the other PE routers which has customer VRFs configured.
Has anybody tried this or a similar method to inject a dynamic default route into a MPLS VPN.
Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
Thanks
Subhash

Hi Subhash,
is there anything preventing you from terminating your internet BGP sessions in a VRF? Then everything should go smoothly, i.e. standard VRF import/export.
So possibility A) create a VRF Internet, move bgp neighbor commands there and use filters preventing anything but the default route, then use route targets to distribute the default route into other VRFs.
Possibility B) use static routing with packet leaking. Could look like this:
ip route vrf Internet 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 global
ip route vrf Internet 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 global 250
ip route Serial0/0 !assuming this is where the customer router connects.
Note: the BGP peer IP does not have to be directly connected! There has to be a LDP label for it though. so include your BGP peers network into your IGP and the backup will work, when you loose the link to the peer.
Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
Regards, Martin

MPLS Tags not appearing on one side of new MPLS VPN

I have an already existing 6509 that is going to provide the entire MPLS routing table via route reflector to a new 6509. Here are the relevant configs:
EXISTING 6509 (Router A)
interface Loopback0
ip address 10.255.2.2 255.255.255.255
end
router bgp 23532
no bgp default ipv4-unicast
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 10.255.2.3 remote-as 23532
neighbor 10.255.2.3 update-source Loopback0
address-family ipv4 mdt
neighbor 10.255.2.3 activate
neighbor 10.255.2.3 send-community extended
neighbor 10.255.2.3 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.255.2.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound
exit-address-family
address-family vpnv4
neighbor 10.255.2.3 activate
neighbor 10.255.2.3 send-community extended
neighbor 10.255.2.3 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.255.2.3 next-hop-self
bgp redistribute-internal
exit-address-family
address-family ipv4 vrf CustomerA
redistribute connected
redistribute static
no synchronization
bgp redistribute-internal
exit-address-family
DAL-COLO-6509-1#show mpls ldp neighbor 10.255.2.3
Peer LDP Ident: 10.255.2.3:0; Local LDP Ident 10.255.2.2:0
TCP connection: 10.255.2.3.16271 - 10.255.2.2.646
State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 647/646; Downstream
Up time: 06:07:30
LDP discovery sources:
Vlan65, Src IP addr: X.X.X.69
Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
10.255.2.3 X.X.X.69 X.X.X.254 10.10.1.31
DAL-COLO-6509-1#show mpls forwarding-table 10.255.2.3 detail
Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes Label Outgoing Next Hop
Label Label or Tunnel Id Switched interface
257 Pop Label 10.255.2.3/32 22272 Vl65 X.X.X.69
MAC/Encaps=14/14, MRU=1584, Label Stack{}
001CB14458000009B6A4B8008847
No output feature configured
DAL-COLO-6509-1#show mpls ldp bindings 10.255.2.3 32
lib entry: 10.255.2.3/32, rev 4933
local binding: label: 257
remote binding: lsr: 10.255.2.1:0, label: 131
remote binding: lsr: 10.255.2.3:0, label: imp-null
DAL-COLO-6509-1#traceroute 10.255.2.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.255.2.3
1 69-69.netblk-66-60-69.yada.net (X.X.X.69) 0 msec * 0 msec
DAL-COLO-6509-1#
New 6509 (Router B)
router bgp 23532
no bgp default ipv4-unicast
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 10.255.2.2 remote-as 23532
neighbor 10.255.2.2 update-source Loopback0
address-family ipv4 mdt
neighbor 10.255.2.2 activate
neighbor 10.255.2.2 send-community both
neighbor 10.255.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound
exit-address-family
address-family vpnv4
neighbor 10.255.2.2 activate
neighbor 10.255.2.2 send-community both
neighbor 10.255.2.2 next-hop-self
bgp redistribute-internal
exit-address-family
address-family ipv4 vrf CustomerA
redistribute connected
redistribute static
no synchronization
bgp redistribute-internal
exit-address-family
Br26-COLO-6509-1#show mpls ldp neighbor 10.255.2.2
Peer LDP Ident: 10.255.2.2:0; Local LDP Ident 10.255.2.3:0
TCP connection: 10.255.2.2.646 - 10.255.2.3.16271
State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 657/657; Downstream
Up time: 06:16:40
LDP discovery sources:
Vlan65, Src IP addr: X.X.X.70
Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
10.255.2.2 X.X.X.10 X.X.X.14 X.X.X.5
66.60.70.18 66.60.75.252 66.60.72.65 66.60.75.81
10.10.1.40 66.60.70.17 X.X.X.17 66.60.73.161
X.X.X.70
Br26-COLO-6509-1#show mpls forwarding-table 10.255.2.2 detail
Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes Label Outgoing Next Hop
Label Label or Tunnel Id Switched interface
40 Pop Label 10.255.2.2/32 0 Vl65 X.X.X.70
MAC/Encaps=14/14, MRU=1584, Label Stack{}
0009B6A4B800001CB14458008847
No output feature configured
Br26-COLO-6509-1#show mpls ldp bindings 10.255.2.2 32
lib entry: 10.255.2.2/32, rev 40
local binding: label: 40
remote binding: lsr: 10.10.1.30:0, label: 29
remote binding: lsr: 10.255.2.2:0, label: imp-null
Br26-COLO-6509-1#traceroute 10.255.2.2
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.255.2.2
1 70-69.netblk-66-60-69.yada.net (X.X.X.70) 0 msec * 0 msec
Br26-COLO-6509-1#
Im seeing label switching coming from the old switch (which has several MPLS VPN connections already). Im not seeing anything from the new switch. OSPF is the routing protocol between the interfaces, and shows to be working fine. LDP neighbor relationship seems to be good- just tagging isn’t occurring going back toward the old switch. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Greg

Yes- that is the problem we are trying to fix.
Br26-COLO-6509-1#sh ver
Cisco IOS Software, s72033_rp Software (s72033_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(33)SXI13, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)
Technical Support: http://www.cisco.com/techsupport
Copyright (c) 1986-2014 by Cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 11-Mar-14 04:53 by prod_rel_team
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(17r)SX5, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
Br26-COLO-6509-1 uptime is 1 day, 49 minutes
Uptime for this control processor is 1 day, 49 minutes
Time since Br26-COLO-6509-1 switched to active is 1 day, 48 minutes
System returned to ROM by reload at 09:20:45 CDT Wed May 7 2014 (SP by reload)
System restarted at 09:24:29 CDT Wed May 7 2014
System image file is "disk0:s72033-adventerprisek9_wan-mz.122-33.SXI13.bin"
Last reload reason: Reload Command
This product contains cryptographic features and is subject to United
States and local country laws governing import, export, transfer and
use. Delivery of Cisco cryptographic products does not imply
third-party authority to import, export, distribute or use encryption.
Importers, exporters, distributors and users are responsible for
compliance with U.S. and local country laws. By using this product you
agree to comply with applicable laws and regulations. If you are unable
to comply with U.S. and local laws, return this product immediately.
A summary of U.S. laws governing Cisco cryptographic products may be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/wwl/export/crypto/tool/stqrg.html
If you require further assistance please contact us by sending email to
[email protected].
cisco WS-C6509-E (R7000) processor (revision 1.3) with 458720K/65536K bytes of memory.
Processor board ID SMG1125N74N
SR71000 CPU at 600Mhz, Implementation 0x504, Rev 1.2, 512KB L2 Cache
Last reset from s/w reset
5 Virtual Ethernet interfaces
154 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces
1917K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
8192K bytes of packet buffer memory.
65536K bytes of Flash internal SIMM (Sector size 512K).
Configuration register is 0x2102
Yes- we do have a Sup7303B in this switch.

MPLS VPN Supported Platforms

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for