I thought about that, but then decided not to recommend it. Its definitely the simplest, but its also not really the best design in my opinion. If only Cisco had a smaller unit that could do MPLS VPNs *and* VPLS. That would seem more strategic in nature than patching it now with a vlan or pseudowire. Isn't the ASR supposed to be getting some VPLS support here soon?
Derick Winkworth CCIE #15672 (RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721 http://blinking-network.blogspot.com --- On Wed, 7/6/11, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: From: Gert Doering <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] GRE tunnel to do span vlan across two datacenters? To: "Jason Gurtz" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 12:23 PM Hi, On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:08:53PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote: > A firm has proposed creating a GRE tunnel between two datacenters (using a > 3750X stack at each) to create the spanned vlans needed for VMWare > failover application. I'd double-check that the 3750X can do that. The 3750-with-no-X can *not*. > There is dark fiber > available, what about VPLS w/ LDP or L2TP solution? If there's fiber available, why not "just trunk the VLANs across"? gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected] fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected] -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ 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/
