On 26/Mar/15 17:41, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Only in the sense that an "SVI" on the ASR920 is a BDI.
I can live with that :-). The concept is still the same, just that SVI's
are replaced with BDI's.
I can imagine how hard it would have been to find this out on the back
of poor documentation.
Of course, ports can have IP addresses applied directly to them,
Nice to still have that. Good for simple implementations where only an
IP service is sold directly off the port, negating the need for EVC's.
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
That's good.
And yes, it looks like uRPF works. :-)
Finally!
I've just resigned to the fact that there are some thing which will
never make it to the ME3600X/3800X, for reasons unknown. On the back of
the ASR920, I doubt much effort is going to be expended on the
ME3600X/3800X any longer.
We'd all do well to start deploying ASR920 in the coming few years.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
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/
