Bruce mentioned local switching to me offline. And it made me look at your email closer.
I'm not sure it would be worth the complexity vs. just running a cable to .1q trunk between the switches to get the L2 connectivity. Without that I agree with Bruce you would have to see if the LC on the GSR supports local switching between the two subinterfaces that would come up on the trunks from both switches. Rodney On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:25:02PM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote: > l2tpv3 or EoMPLS are options. > > You have to check the hw/sw requirements against the > actual LC's you have and code. > > Rodney > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:45:51AM -0800, Drew Weaver wrote: > > We have a scenario that looks like this: > > > > Router Router > > HostA- Switch Switch- HostB > > > > The switches are each connected to both routers, but not to each other. > > > > The routers are 12000s and the switches are 6500s. > > > > I'm wondering what the best way besides running a really long cable to get > > HostA and HostB in the same VLAN. > > > > I'm pretty sure my only choice is Q in Q but I wanted to check with you > > folks. > > > > Thanks, > > -Drew > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
