On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 14:32 -0700, Joe Pruett wrote: > 1. put port g#/# in switchport mode, then using vlan# interface with ip > unnumbered. route to vlan# > 2. create subint on port g#/# with dot1q native vlan and ip unnumber it. > route to g#/#.# > 3. assign fake ip (like 10.#.#.1/30) to base port. route to g#/# > > pro/cons: > > 1 probably give me the most flexibility, i can provide multiple ports to > a single customer by putting them all in same vlan. but i wonder if > processing will be heavier that way having to go through the vlan pseudo > interface.
The Cat6k platform (6500/7600) uses VLANs internally for everything. So don't worry about that part. > and i haven't determined if any of these would have problems with > shaping. they all seem like full interfaces, so i would expect to be > able to shape on any of them. Shaping is not really an option on 6500 LAN cards. Something like the ES-family of cards might do what you want, but they're a lot more pricey than LAN cards like WS-X6748-SFP and the like. (You have some very limited shaping-ish capabilities on LAN-cards but probably not enough.) > no one may be as crazy as i am and doing anything like this, so feedback > may be sparse. but, i'm curious if anyone has feelings about which of > 1-3 would have the least overhead. i don't have enough time available to > set up a good test between them. they all seem to work, but that's as > far as i've gotten. Seems very sensible what you're doing. I'd go for option 1 in your list though we're not doing this kind of stuff. What platform do you come from? What supervisor is in your 6509? -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
