Rado,
nyc1(config)#int te1/2.1254
nyc1(config-subif)#mtu ?
<9216-9216> MTU size in bytes
nyc1(config-subif)#mtu 9216 ?
<cr>
nyc1(config-subif)#mtu 9216
% Sub-interface TenGigabitEthernet1/2.1254 does not support user
settable mtu
Afaik, all sub-interfaces assume the MTU of the primary physical port,
and that this cannot be changed.
Rado Vasilev wrote:
Justin,
You should be able to fix the MTU mismatch issue without changing the
interface/sub-interface MTU.
conf t
interface xxx/x.10
xconnect ..
mtu xxx
regards,
Rado
On 18 Jan 2009, at 01:41, Justin Shore wrote:
Chris Phillips wrote:
The MTU definitely needs to be the same, in my experience. However,
I am somewhat new to MPLS and am very much still in the learning
process. But, that would be the first thing that I would change.
I'm in the same boat for L2VPNs. I have somewhat better knowledge of
L3VPNs at this point. We're just now really diving into L2VPNs.
I did change the MTU and that fixed it. That presents a design issue
for me which I detailed in a self-reply to the list. I'm now trying
to figure out what best practice is for EoMPLS on sub-ints when the
sub-int involves customer and infrastructure VLANs. The best answer
may be to not mix them. Thoughts?
Thanks
Justin
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
--
Chris Phillips
Senior IP Engineer & Peering Coordinator
WBS Connect
[email protected]
(866) WBS-CONX
(720) 259-8361 - direct
(303) 968-4383 - mobile
www.wbsconnect.com
www.wbstoday.com blog
Ranked #1 as the "Fastest Growing privately held company in Colorado"
- 2008 Denver Business Journal -
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
