Hi – thanks, Interestingly it states:
•These features are not supported on EVCs: –QinQ tagging Which is a bit unclear and maybe out of context, but we do need to apply a second tag to the existing traffic from the other service provider, so even if EVC is supported and we were running an ES or using a 2T it still reads (maybe) as if it’s not possible?... Either way, I could do with knowing if this is possible on a 2T at all? Thanks again! From: Pete Lumbis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 March 2013 10:13 To: Robert Williams Cc: Adam Vitkovsky; [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Processing one VLAN received on a Q-in-Q port On the 6k I think EVC configuration can only be accomplishes on ES+ (maybe ES-20?) or with Sup2t http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/15.1SY/config_guide/sup2T/ethernet_virtual_connection.html On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Robert Williams <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Adam, Many thanks for that, it reads like it would do exactly what we need, however the switch doesn't accept Ethernet encapsulation: (config-if)#service instance 10 ethernet (config-if-srv)#ethernet ? lmi Configure ether lmi parameters (config-if-srv)#? Ethernet EFP configuration commands: default Set a command to its defaults ethernet Configure ether lmi parameters exit Exit from ETHER EFP configuration mode no Negate a command or set its defaults It's running Version 12.2(33)SXJ3 / AdvIP Services and the line card is a 6708-10GE with a DFC3CXL Any other pointers or maybe suggestions as to IOS versions / Line cards with or without this feature? Cheers! Robert Williams Custodian Data Centre Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.CustodianDC.com Robert Williams Custodian Data Centre Email: [email protected] http://www.CustodianDC.com -----Original Message----- From: Adam Vitkovsky [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: 25 March 2013 08:42 To: Robert Williams; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Processing one VLAN received on a Q-in-Q port Hi Robert, I believe you should be able to use the following config for the VLAN 10. interface Gi1/1 service instance 10 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 10 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 40 interface Vlan 40 ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 check out the following series: http://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2009/09/evc-flexible-service-mapping.html http://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2009/06/evc-flexible-frame-matching.html http://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2009/06/evc-flexible-vlan-tag-rewrite.html adam -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Robert Williams Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:24 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [c-nsp] Processing one VLAN received on a Q-in-Q port Hi Guys, Hopefully someone here can assist with this, I need to process locally a VLAN which is received into our network from another service provider via one of our Q-in-Q ports. Currently we use a Q-in-Q port to double-tag all traffic we receive from the other provider, then transport it across our network and give it back to them where they then break it out on their own switch at one of our other facilities. We do this across a series of 6500/720XL chassis. This works fine, however, we now need to bring up an additional BGP session with the other provider, but the session has to be over the same physical port as we use for the Q-in-Q transport. To put it into a logical sentence, we need the port facing the other provider at the edge of our network to: “Double-tag VLANs 1-9 and 11-4094 with SPvLAN ID 500 - but switch VLAN 10 locally without double-tagging it” We will then bring up the BGP session on VLAN 10, but allow all the others to pass across our network with the additional double-tag. All packets we receive from the other SP are single-tagged, including the VLAN on which we need to inject our BGP session. I’m not sure what other information may be relevant so please just ask me anything. If this is not possible on the 720 platform, then we will consider deploying either a 2T or ASR9k at this location to meet the requirement (both are currently being looked at as options for upgrading our 720 units anyway). However, it would be nice if the 2T can do it as the ASR may be overkill considering the other requirements of the site. Thanks in advance! Robert Williams Custodian Data Centre Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.CustodianDC.com _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
<<inline: image004.png>>
<<inline: image005.png>>
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
