Is there any ServiceApp limitation regarding ServiceApp interfaces on ISM compared to CGSE on CRS?
If I understand documentation for ISM correctly, only ServiceApp pairs cane be configured on ISM. Meaning only one inside VRF mapped to only one outside VRF.
I know that on CGSE you can map multiple inside VRFs to one outside VRF as long as you have different address pools, on ISM not. Configuration guide explicitly says that ServiceApp interfaces must be pared in N,N+1 or N,n+5 or N,+N+9. Is this true?
Regarding address pool. Is it possible to assign two IP ranges to one inside-to-outside mapping? Can I add together /19 and /20 ranges to be used together for single inside VRF without splitting customers in two VRFs.
I'm on XR 5.1 right now doing nat44; according to docs multiple pools per vrf is supported starting with 5.2, right?
If upgrade is not an option, what would be best solution?
1.- create a second inside vrf
2.- create a separate serviceapp (in/out) pairing and add second inside vrf in the same cgn nat44 service while using abf do distribute traffic between the 2 separate inside VRFs with separate/different map address-pools?
Indeed, it's the same situation for ISM and VSM. AFAIK, it's not in the short term roadmap. So I can only suggest to contact your Cisco account team representative and get him/her relay your interest to the Product Management team.
Introduction: The "external-out enable" command is available for
configuration under the "router ospf process" in case of the IOS-XR
operating system. This command basically enables advertisement of
intra-area routes on the device as external routes in th...
IntroductionIn this article we'll discuss how to troubleshoot packet
loss in the asr9000 and specifically understanding the NP drop counters,
what they mean and what you can do to mitigate them. This document will
be an ongoing effort to improve troublesh...