On Sunday 18 January 2009 09:23:04 am Justin Shore wrote: > The MTU thing got me thinking (dangerous I know). I set > the MTU on Gi0/2 on 7201 back to 1500 and the VC > immediately came up and passed traffic. The MTU on the > sub-int of the 7201 can't be set separately from the > physical interface's MTU: > > % Non-TRISL encapsulated sub-interface > GigabitEthernet0/2.130 does not support user settable > mtu.
You can set the 'xconnect' MTU independently on the sub- interface, but you'll need SRC for that: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_any_transport_ps6441_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html#wp1047362 > MPLS MTU on the sub-int or physical interface doesn't > appear to affect EoMPLS VCs either. That just affects how much MTU is available to the MPLS infrastructure. Some vendors do allow you to ignore MTU mismatch. Whether that's a good or bad thing is an operational matter for your network. We prefer to have them similar. > Along this same train of thought, what's best practice > for EoMPLS links when mixed with sub-ints? Should I > strive to keep infrastructure links separate from > customer links? That's what we do, in the case of edge routers. We'd, at least, use an edge router that has three (3) interfaces - 2x facing upstream to the core, 1x as the 802.1Q trunk to customers (more for customer redundancy, e.t.c.). Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
