gt;;
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net <mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Betreff: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 LACP and xconnect
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:16, Eric Van Tol
<mailto:e...@atlantech.net> > wrote:
Interface configs:
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
mtu 1600
no ip address
load-interv
Yes, you can use xconnect or bridge-domain (and then xconnect) under the dot1q
evcs.
--
Tassos
Eric Van Tol wrote on 21/8/20 19:29:
> But is this in an EoMPLS xconnect? That is the issue - the entire circuit is
> in an xconnect and the neighboring device needs to 'peer' with ours through
>
Problem is essentially resolved. I got one direct response telling me to try
configuring a pseudowire interface and using l2vpn context, then add the Po1
and PW interfaces as members. While I believe that would have worked, I
discovered the customer wasn't even using their untagged VLAN2 for
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 08:34:14AM +0300, h...@interall.co.il wrote:
> We have seen that as well. We had that recently with a new
> international carrier.
> Turns out when they set up the circuit on their optical switching
> equipment (whether it be Ciena, ECI, Infinera, Cisco or
p@puck.nether.net>
> Betreff: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 LACP and xconnect
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:16, Eric Van Tol mailto:e...@atlantech.net> > wrote:
> > Interface configs:
> >
> > interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
> > mtu 1600
> > no ip addres
But is this in an EoMPLS xconnect? That is the issue - the entire circuit is in
an xconnect and the neighboring device needs to 'peer' with ours through LACP.
I, too, have no issues with plain LAG setups using LACP.
-evt
On 8/21/20, 12:21 PM, "cisco-nsp on behalf of Tassos Chatzithomaoglou"
We haven't faced any issues with the following (ASR920 with 15.6(2)SP6):
interface Port-channel1
service instance 100 ethernet
encapsulation untagged
l2protocol peer cdp lacp udld
!
service instance 501 ethernet
encapsulation dot1q x
!
service instance 502 ethernet
encapsulation
James,
The same behavior, but there is no 'on' option for the ASR (in this XE version,
anyway). Only options are 'active' and 'passive'. I think 'channel-group
1' is a valid config, but I have not tried it. Given some of the
responses I've received already, I'm going to assume this is just not
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:16, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> Interface configs:
>
> interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
> mtu 1600
> no ip address
> load-interval 30
> negotiation auto
> channel-group 1 mode active
> !
>
> interface GigabitEthernet0/0/1
> mtu 1600
> no ip address
> load-interval 30
>
We have seen that as well. We had that recently with a new
international carrier.
Turns out when they set up the circuit on their optical switching
equipment (whether it be Ciena, ECI, Infinera, Cisco or whoever),
there are some knobs that need to be adjusted to allow through all
types of
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:12:29PM +, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> I???m trying to verify something here that is working, but also not working.
> At some point, we built an LACP bundle to a customer device (2x1G ports) and
> put it into an EoMPLS setup using xconnect to send it over to another
Hi all,
I’m trying to verify something here that is working, but also not working. At
some point, we built an LACP bundle to a customer device (2x1G ports) and put
it into an EoMPLS setup using xconnect to send it over to another site where
they have a 10G single circuit. While the LAG is ‘up’
12 matches
Mail list logo
