Hi, On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:37AM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote: > On 7/20/12 1:08 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > > >On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> I think my point is.. If you are buying an asr9k > >>you can likely afford an ethernet switch vs using an > >>expensive router port. > >Sometimes BVI are the poor man's multi-chassis etherchannel to > >get redundant links to downstream switches... > > On ASR9k you can configure MC-LAG, which is present for that kind of > scenarios, and you don't need to use BVI to build some tricky > workarounds.
Maybe I do not understand what MC-LAG does, but I'm not sure how it would
help here?
The scenario described is "one router, two different switches, both
switches are standalone and have no multi-chassis capabilities". So you
can do BVI on the router, some sort of "backup interface", or...?
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]
pgpSepXkBeaV1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
