On (2014-02-05 16:09 -0500), Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Would it be fair to say that the way a port-based EoMPLS port treats > l2protocol packets is essentially the same as if someone were to configure > l2protocol forward? That is, the packets are just forwarded along the PW > unprocessed. Whereas l2protocol tunnel (like on an ME3400) will rewrite the > destination MAC making it incompatible with a 'forward'ed l2protocol packet?
Correct. MAC rewrite is only needed if between end points there would be L2 switches, which, without mac rewrite would terminate the BPDU. With end-to-end MPLS, there is no reason to use it. There is reason not to use it though, it is not fully transparent, as if you receive 'tunneled' frame from client side, you'll go to 'errdisable' mode. So your product towards customers should specify that this and that MAC address are not allowed or supported by your product. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
