Josh, that's a great document, thank you.
I'm going to do the testing in the lab, but are there any functional advantages
to using VLAN configurations versus sub-interface configuration on the Cisco
device when converting from the Foundry Ethernet multiple IP address
configuration?
Much appreciated,
Eric Louie
619-743-5375
________________________________
From: Josh Farrelly <[email protected]>
To: Eric A Louie <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, October 4, 2012 3:30:11 PM
Subject: Re: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces
Hi Eric
For the most part, yes to both.
Take a look at this document here (pages 19 &
20): http://community.brocade.com/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/1848-102-1-3553/Brocade-Cisco%20Comparison.pdf
Kind Regards,
Josh Farrelly
Infrastructure Architect, ICTS.
Manukau Institute of Technology
From: Eric A Louie <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, 5 October 2012 11:07 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces
I'm preparing to translate some Foundry configurations to Cisco.
As far as I can tell, the tagged interfaces are really just 802.1q trunk
ports.
Is that an accurate assessment?
Foundry allows multiple IP addresses on the Ethernet interface. Do I have a
choice to use vlan interfaces and/or Ethernet sub-interfaces on the Cisco to
provide the same functionality?
Much appreciated,
Eric Louie
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
[email protected]
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
