> -----Original Message----- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark > Tinka > On 26/Mar/15 17:04, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > > > I did quite a bit of testing in our lab prior to deployment, mainly to see > if there was feature parity with the ME3600. Configuration and feature- > wise, they were nearly identical, at least with regard to what we provide or > plan to provide. It did take me some time to figure out how to get an "SVI" > onto it, as I've never worked with IOS-XE and the documentation for the > ASR920 is/was just terrible/incomplete. > > Is it different from SVI's on the ME3600X/3800X?
Only in the sense that an "SVI" on the ASR920 is a BDI. Of course, ports can have IP addresses applied directly to them, but in order to perform switching or VLAN trunking, service instances and BDIs are required: interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0 mtu 9216 no ip address load-interval 30 negotiation auto service instance 8 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 8 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 8 ! service instance 600 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 600 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 600 ! ! interface BDI600 ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252 ip verify unicast reverse-path end And yes, it looks like uRPF works. :-) -evt _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/