That's exactly what we also did.
MPLS & ACLs work fine with IRB on MX, so we switched to them.
Probably the new ASR9k RSP/LCs (will) support it, but they are way too
expensive to proceed with a replacement.
--
Tassos
Mack McBride wrote on 19/07/2012 22:45:
Unfortunately there are good reasons to combine switching and routing.
Otherwise you are stuck with a router on a stick configuration.
I have made my complaints about the lack of support for switching on any device
that can handle a full routing table for the next five years.
Our sales guys have relayed those to the technical teams but there hasn't been
any feedback or visible movement.
If cisco deploys FIB compression it might solve some of those concerns but the
feedback is that the development on that has stopped or is at least not on the
road map.
The ASR 9K is a great box but without decent switching support and rapid-pvst
it doesn't work well in a managed services/colocation environment.
The Nexus 7K is stuck at the same place the 6500 and 7600 are routing table
wise and lack of MPLS support is still a concern.
The Juniper MX series can handle switching and rapid-pvst and upwards to 4
million routes (usual division of IPv4/IPv6 applies but is dynamic)
and we are currently testing it for a replacement for the 6500/7600.
LR Mack McBride
Network Architect
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:55 PM
To: Aaron
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
I'm still unclear why so many people want to make something built as a router
do BVI. Ethernet switches aren't that expensive in my experience :)
- Jared
On Jul 19, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Aaron wrote:
Thanks Chip
Yeah, with some of this newer gear and software, it seems like Cisco
is still learning about Cisco :)
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: chip [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:56 PM
To: Aaron
Cc: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
Ok, so looking at the release notes. Only 4.2.1 supports acl's on BVI
interfaces and only in the egress direction. Looks like you can
apply it, but it may not work:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k
_r4.2/
general/release/notes/reln_a9k_421.html#concept_641E24E225D747C08099E2
0F3AFA
A93A
The router snippet I displayed was from a 4.2.0 ASR9006 with a RSP440
and my testing indicates that the ACL*WILL* drop packets according to
the ACL's rules.
I've found that there's still a lack of clarity wrt to 9k's and XR
within Cisco and its getting a bit frustrating.
--chip
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Aaron <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Tassos et al, But that list you just sent is in a config doc
for 4.2.x
So are those bvi limitation in 4.2.x ? chip said that he thinks that
bvi acl is supported in 4.2.0 and my SE just told me that too. (she
also told me that bvi acl support in 4.2.0 requires the new line
cards ! ugh)
So I'm confused with that list of bvi limitations within the 4.2.x
config
doc.
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: chip; Aaron
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
Many things missing....
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.2/i
n
terfaces/configuration/guide/hc42irb.html#wp1011723
The following areas are /not/ supported on the BVI:
-Access Control Lists (ACLs). However, Layer 2 ACLs can be configured
on
each Layer 2 port of the bridge domain.
-IP fast reroute (FRR)
-NetFlow
-MoFRR
-MPLS label switching
-mVPNv4
-Quality of Service (QoS)
-Traffic mirroring
-Unnumbered interface for BVI
-Video monitoring (Vidmon)
--
Tassos
chip wrote on 19/7/2012 19:45:
interface BVI101
description cust-bgp-1 vlan 101
ipv4 address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
ipv4 access-group cust-bgp-1-out-acl egress
This is gained support in 4.2.0 I think.
--chip
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Aaron <[email protected]> wrote:
Are acl's supported on BVI's ?
I have a phy int g0/0/0/1 with a flow point (sub int) g0/0/0/1.10
l2transport config'd and put into l2vpn bg:bd with a routed int
inside that bg:bd as bvi 10
I would think that the appropriate location to place an ipv4
access-list would be on the L3 interface , that being the bvi. But
I don't see the command "ipv4 access-list" under the bvi.
What am I missing here ?
Aaron
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
--
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc....
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
