This would be simple with mpls: asr901: int gi0/5 xconnect ip.of.asr9010 9999 encapsulation mpls
asr9010: int gi0/0/0/0 l2transport l2vpn xconnect group cust-vpws p2p vpws-cust-a interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0 neighbor ipv4 ip.of.asr901 pw-id 9999 If you're using a tagged port at either end, it can be slightly more complicated due to MTU issues. See chap 5 of this document for some guidelines: > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3600x_3800x/software/design/guide/ASR9K_interop_white_paper.pdf Nick On 30/05/2014 12:13, Shane Heupel wrote: > I originally had it configured that way but changed it so I could do some > troubleshooting because they were unable to pass any traffic. I plan to put > it back once we get traffic going. I guess my question is how does the > interfaces between the ASR901 and 9010 need to be configured. I had TAC on > the phone for about two hours last night and they couldn't figure it out. I > see the MAC of the equipment from Site B in the 9010 but I never see the MAC > of the equipment connected to the 901. > > My original config: > ASR901: > Int gi0/5 > Description to Cust Site A > Service instance 2088 > Encapsulation untagged > Bridge-domain 2088 > ! > Int gi0/4 > Description To ASR9k > Service-instance 2088 eth > Encapsulation untagged > Bridge-domain 2088 > ! > ASR9010 > Int gi0/1/1/0.2088 > Encapsulation untagged > ! > Int gi0/0/0/0.2088 > To Cust CPE at Site B > Encapsulation untagged > ! > L2vpn > xconnect group IE_2088 > p2p IE_2088 > interface gi0/0/0/0.2088 > interface gi0/1/1/0.2088 > ! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:19 AM > To: Shane Heupel; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR901/9010 config > > On 30/05/2014 01:37, Shane Heupel wrote: >> Hoping someone can help with a configuration I'm having trouble with. >> Trying to pass untagged traffic from cust-site-A to cust-site-B. >> Thought the configuration would be straight forward but traffic is not >> passing between host. I'm sure I'm missing something simple but can't >> seem to figure it out. > > why not use an mpls xconnect here? Would be a much better fit for your > requirements. You don't need an extra license to do this on your asr9k. > An mpls xconnect will give your customer a clear-channel path between site A > and B, and there's no MAC address learning on your network which means they > can do whatever they want and it won't trash your forwarding tables. > > If you provide them with a VLAN service, then it's not fully transparent to > them (which is annoying for them) and they can screw up your network by > sending frames with too many different mac addresses (which is critical for > you). > > Nick > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
