>"one router, two different switches, both switches are standalone and have no multi-chassis capabilities". If there's the same VLAN running of the two switches you could terminate it on two separate L3 sub-interfaces on the ASR9K /breaking the VLAN subnet in two -loosing 4 addresses Or instead of the BVI you could use a PW to aggregate the L2 traffic form the disjoint VLAN and terminate the PW at ASR9K running L3 for the aggregation ring Or you can use the already mentioned L2 switch to aggregate the VLANS from the two switches and connect it via trunk to ASR9K
adam -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:53 AM To: ?ukasz Bromirski Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2 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] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
