Hi, On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:14:10AM +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote: > >"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
Which give you twice the amount of single-point-of-failure, instead of
the desired goal: redundant links to the same L2 network.
> 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
I'm not sure I understand that, but it doesn't sound any simpler than
a BVI... (but as long as VPLS is mentioned, it must be great)
> Or you can use the already mentioned L2 switch to aggregate the VLANS from
> the two switches and connect it via trunk to ASR9K
There's no "single L2 switch". Which is the point of the excercise.
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]
pgpA7dpyYxXRn.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/
