On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:46AM +0300, Victor Lyapunov wrote: > Both configurations seem to achieve the same effect but I am not sure which > one > is the preferable for large amount of traffic / subscribers. > > For example due to the bridge domain I would expect that the first > alternative will > create more entries in the mac-address table.
Victor, Whilst it doesn't directly relate to this problem the large number of subscribers that you mention, we have examined what the best way forward for terminating a number of ethernet access customers on ES/ES+ cards at a CPOC lab. The overwhelming advice from Cisco (both our SE and a couple of DE that we talked to) was that there was more flexibility in using EVCs rather than routed subifs. There are a few features, especially in terms of QoS, that are supported on EVC and not on subinterfaces. I guess this argument is only really valid if you have any requirement to support different features ongoing - we're currently using routed subifs with no problems in a couple of deployments. Kind regards, Rob -- Rob Shakir <[email protected]> Network Development Engineer GX Networks/Vialtus Solutions ddi: +44208 587 6077 mob: +44797 155 4098 pgp: 0xc07e6deb nic-hdl: RJS-RIPE This email is subject to: http//www.vialtus.com/disclaimer.html _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
