Thanks... we don't want to touch each workstation - would involve way too much time for our installations...;)
With UDP traffic, does anything "normally" break that comes to mind on larger MTU? I can't think of anything hence why I'm asking... Cheers, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Ge Moua [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June 18, 2009 11:33 AM To: Paul Stewart Cc: 'Ziv Leyes'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs Yep, ran into that to; on the upstream layer-3 hop from hosts do something like "tcp-mss adjust 1300" which will ensure tcp packets haver enough head-room for l2tpv3 headers. With UDP traffic, this get more tricky; I haven't done this yet but one can adjust max segment size on end-station hosts to something like 1300 (which of course would affect all protocol types); there are open source tools to do this, but downside is that all the end-station hosts need to touched for consistency; i suppose I'm too lazy : - ( Regards, Ge Moua | Email: [email protected] Network Design Engineer University of Minnesota | Networking & Telecommunications Services Paul Stewart wrote: > How did you deal with MTU issues from l2tpv3? In our testing we would see > packets drop instead of fragmenting where they should... I've been meaning > to followup on this as we have some great l2tpv3 deployments waiting in the > wings... > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ge Moua > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 AM > To: Ziv Leyes > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs > > > > How do I make this happen on the HQ router? > > Each l2tp tunnel will have its own vc: "sh l2tun all" > > You obviously have thoughts this all out as your logic for how it will > and should work is sound. > > We are doing a very similar setup over here at the UofMn and this is > working well for us. > > > Regards, > Ge Moua | Email: [email protected] > > Network Design Engineer > University of Minnesota | Networking & Telecommunications Services > > > > Ziv Leyes wrote: > >> Hi, >> I'm trying to make sure this following scenario can work. >> 3 remote sites, one is the HQ which has a switch that handles 2 vlans, >> > let's say vlan 10 and vlan 20. > >> The other two branches needs to be connected to the HQ and have a flat LAN >> > between them and the HQ, but each branch to it's own vlan, branch 1 to vlan > 10 and branch 2 to vlan 20. They must NOT see each other's traffic. > >> Every site has a switch and a router (C2801 I think) Is it possible to do? >> If yes, then I was thinking about L2TPv3, but in this case I'd need to >> > make two different xconnections between HQ-->Branch 1 and HQ-->Branch 2. > >> How do I make this happen on the HQ router? I was thinking to bring the >> > vlans via a trunk from the switch and then finishing them on sub-interfaces > with dot1q and then xconnecting the sob-interface to each l2tp tunnel to > each respective branch. Is it correct or there is a better way? > >> Will this work? >> >> Thanks in advance for your help >> Ziv >> >> >> >> >> >> > **************************************************************************** > ******** > >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >> > viruses. > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/
