Cisco 7600 won't tunnel LACP.. I wouldn't say strange equipment doesn't do it. Lots of "normal" gear sucks at it. L2PT is bad, and all of the gear is bad (and it should feel bad).
One option would be to buy "cheap" ethenet NIDs that can do L2PT tunneling to uncommon MAC addresses to avoid the underlying equipment from eating the frames. Accedian/Adva/Overture/Probably others can all do that. Ethernet CFM could potentially do what you're after, but there's not going to be a built in mechanism to disable a port, or take a port out of the port-channel. Go L3 instead across your two links. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Ross Halliday < [email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Evans > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:19 PM > > To: Adam Vitkovsky > > Cc: cisco-nsp > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] End to end keepalive over QinQ provider > > > > I have two paths that I'd like to port-channel. Since they don't support > > LACP the only thing I can do is do static configuration, but if the path > > of > > one of the links takes a hit there is no end to end notifications that > > will > > cause an interface to go down or be taken out of forwarding. With LACP > > you > > can do this because the ports will debundle. I was hoping that CFM would > > take the path out of service, but I don't think that is the case. > > > > Thoughts? > > You mean the LACP negotiation is eaten by your provider? What kind of > strange equipment/config are they running? > > UDLD is designed to do what you want - will that function? > > Cheers > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
