Am 02.12.2013 16:29, schrieb Lukas Tribus: > Hi, > >> Just FYI - we've got the answer from TAC now that the ME3400G won't >> support an FHRP with IPv4 and IPv6 on the *same interface*. It seems to >> be a hardware limitation of this series. > > Does this apply only to ME3400 non-E, or to the E series as well? > > ME3400 non-E is EOL and EOS next month (that could be standard excuse nr1): > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps6568/ps6580/end_of_life_notice_c51-726108.html
Our call was for the old non-E version. We should had tried it much much earlier... > > > >> Call my imagination somewhat limited, but I have a truly hard time >> understanding how you could build a hardware that would not be able >> to do that. This is basically a pure control-plane functionality, >> plus "handle a virtual MAC address" - and if you use the same vmac for >> IPv4+IPv6, I can't see how the forwarding hardware would need to know >> that there is IPv6 involved as well. > > Agreed, just punt the packet to the CPU, its not like using one destination > mac with multiple applications would be a first: 01:00:0c:cc:cc:cc is used for > CDP/VTP/DTP/PAGP/UDLD - and that even includes parsing an LLC header to > differentiate the application; here we just need to differentiate based on the > EtherType. > > > Probably the "business case" is not big enough to fix this bug, and declaring > a WONTFIX for such a severe IPv6 limitation in 2013 would not be very wise > from a PR perspective, so they made up the hardware excuse. ...because now they can use this excuse to bridge the time gap until end-of-everything and no one will do anything more on this platform. Gerald _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
