> -----Original Message----- > From: Benny Amorsen [mailto:[email protected]] > > Microsoft were by far not the first to do this, and I still believe that > it is a brilliant solution to a difficult problem, even though we do not > use it.
Maybe, still changes nothing on the fact that if they do it, they can't blame other vendors for not supporting. Being Cisco, I'd choose the RFC-compliant way, too. At least for the fact they could have changed it again just as soon as I put an effort to support their tweak... And I don't find it brilliant - why on earth I should multiply an unicast request? That's a bandaid for a concept that's bad from scratch, not a proper solution. > It is highly worrying if the 6500/7600 breaks this for layer 2 traffic. > If we provide an EoMPLS link to a customer, it better be transparent. > Support for this will definitely go into our next requirements document. Actually, it's not for L2 switched traffic, but for L3 switched SVI-to-SVI, coming and leaving the same distributed etherchannel, on different LC's. That's the way I understood the combination of the conditions for the drop to occur. The reason was a RFC-compliance check by the egress LC's ASICs. -- deejay _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
