Thanks Chris Rereading your post I see this is for subinterfaces. I for some reason associated it to "SVI" ....... Too much wine for thanksgiving
Regards Brian > > Hi Brian, > > no ES/SIP cards needed. This is on a simple WS-X6704-10GE card. > It has been working for years already, lowest version tested was on > 12.2(33)SRE6. > Please note that you can not do VPLS with the Sup720, this is just for simple > P2P tunnels (EoMPLS). > > Regards, > Chris > > On 28/11/14 09:24, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Chris > > > > Don't you still need es/sip cards for this ? > > If it has changed it would be great. > > > > Thanks > > > > Brian > > > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> you can also do port-to-subint on the Sup720 using ethernet interworking: > >> > >> one end: > >> > >> interface TenGigabitEthernet3/2 > >> xconnect y.y.y.y 1 encapsulation mpls end > >> > >> the other: > >> > >> interface TenGigabitEthernet4/2.2010 > >> encapsulation dot1Q 2010 > >> xconnect x.x.x.x 1 pw-class atom-eth-iw end > >> > >> The magic is in the pw-class atom-eth-iw: > >> > >> pseudowire-class atom-eth-iw > >> encapsulation mpls > >> interworking ethernet > >> > >> We're using that in production and it works just fine. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> On 27/11/14 12:10, Simon Lockhart wrote: > >>> In simple terms (and I apologise if this is fixed in Sup2T, as most > >>> of my experience has been on the Sup720), with the 6500/6800 > >>> platform, you can only do port-to-port or subint-to-subint VPWS, but > >>> not port-to-subint (which you can on the more capable boxes, or with > >>> the ES > >> cards on the 6500/6800). > >>> > >>> Simon > >>> > >>> On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 11:05:18AM +0000, R LAS wrote: > >>>> Hi Simon > >>>> can you detail more "ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) > >>>> than > >> 6807" ? > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>>> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +0000 > >>>>> From: [email protected] > >>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>> CC: [email protected] > >>>>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807 > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +0000, R LAS wrote: > >>>>>> Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center > >>>>>> Interconnection), Cisco raccomends both ASR9k and 6807. The > >>>>>> architecture requested by the customer forecast MPLS/VPLS > supported by DCI. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From pricing point of view there is a quite big difference (win > >>>>>> 6807), from feature point of view Cisco says the difference is > >>>>>> "only" the number of mac-addresses supported and the sw > modularity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can anybody help in digging more the "technical" difference ? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm going through much the same at the moment, and settling on > >>>>> 6807, largely from a price perspective. > >>>>> > >>>>> ASR9k is (today) a more capable box for routing - particularly if > >>>>> you want higher bandwidths. ASR9k has 100G ports today. 6807 only > >>>>> has 40G. ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than 6807. > >>>>> > >>>>> 6807 has a lot of potential (880G per slot), but it's not > >>>>> supported by either Supervisors or Linecards that are available > >>>>> today (current limit > >> is 80G/slot). > >>>>> > >>>>> Simon > >>>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cisco-nsp mailing list [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] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
