As update for the list after some e-mails offlist:
On 06.08.2012 6:03 PM, Aaron wrote:
> I think the phy int can't be l2transport if you want the subordinate subints
> to be l2transport
>
> Is g0/0/0/0 l2transport ?
>
> Sh run int g0/0/0/0..lemme see it please
Strange IOS XR, you have t
bject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
On 7/19/12 9:45 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
> If cisco deploys FIB compression it might solve some of those
> concerns but the feedback is that the development on that has stopped > or
> is at least not on the road map.
Why? FIB compre
treatment. Ugh.
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tim Kleefass
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:59 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
Hi Aaron,
On 23.07
Hi Aaron,
On 23.07.2012 3:16 PM, Aaron wrote:
> Hi Tim, et al, why don't you have your bvi1 listed as a routed interface
> within that bg:bd ?
>
> l2vpn
> bridge group EDFA
> bridge-domain EDFA
> ? interface BVI1 ?
Sorry, copy and paste error. Of course, the bvi1 interface is also in
the bri
m: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:20 AM
To: adam vitkovsky
Cc: 'Gert Doering'; '?ukasz Bromirski'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:14:10AM +0200, adam v
n Behalf Of tim
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 4:15 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
On 19.07.2012 6:39 PM, Aaron wrote:
> Are acl's supported on BVI's ?
>
> I have a phy int g0/0/0/1 with a flow point (sub int) g0/0/0/1.10
> l2t
t: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 10:14 +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote:
> > one router, two different switches, both switches are standalone and
> > have no multi-chassis capabilities.
>
> If there's the same VLAN running of the two switches
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:14:10AM +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote:
> >"one router, two different switches, both switches are standalone and have
> no multi-chassis capabilities".
> If there's the same VLAN running of the two switches you could terminate it
> on two separate L3 sub-interfaces on
On 19.07.2012 6:39 PM, Aaron wrote:
> Are acl's supported on BVI's ?
>
> I have a phy int g0/0/0/1 with a flow point (sub int) g0/0/0/1.10
> l2transport config'd and put into l2vpn bg:bd with a routed int inside that
> bg:bd as bvi 10
>
>
>
> I would think that the appropriate location to plac
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 10:14 +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote:
> > one router, two different switches, both switches are standalone and have
> > no multi-chassis capabilities.
>
> If there's the same VLAN running of the two switches you could
> terminate it on two separate L3 sub-interfaces on the ASR9K
--Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:53 AM
To: ?ukasz Bromirski
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 23,
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:37AM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> On 7/20/12 1:08 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >>I think my point is.. If you are buying an asr9k
> >>you can likely afford an ethernet switch vs using an
> >>
On 7/20/12 1:08 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
I think my point is.. If you are buying an asr9k
you can likely afford an ethernet switch vs using an
expensive router port.
Sometimes BVI are the poor man's multi-chassis etherchannel
On 7/19/12 9:45 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
If cisco deploys FIB compression it might solve some of those
> concerns but the feedback is that the development on that has stopped
> or is at least not on the road map.
Why? FIB compression is bad. For convergence, for scalability, for
anything other
On 20 July 2012 12:08, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Sometimes BVI are the poor man's multi-chassis etherchannel to
> get redundant links to downstream switches...
>
>
Yes indeed.
It is equally frustrating that neither HSRP nor VRRP are supported on
ASR1k/IOS-XE BDI interfaces.
Aled
_
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I think my point is.. If you are buying an asr9k
> you can likely afford an ethernet switch vs using an
> expensive router port.
Sometimes BVI are the poor man's multi-chassis etherchannel to
get redundant links to downstr
auch
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:55 PM
To: Aaron
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
I'm still unclear why so many people want to make something built as a router
do BVI. Ethernet switches aren't that expensive in my experience :)
- Ja
: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
I have made my complaints about the lack of support for switching on any
device that can handle a full routing table for the next five years.
Our sales guys have relayed those to the technical teams but there hasn't
been
nether.net] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:55 PM
To: Aaron
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
I'm still unclear why so many people want to make something built as a router
do BVI. Ethernet switches aren't
Do you work for cisco? ...own stock?
:)
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:55 PM
To: Aaron
Cc: 'chip'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
I'm still uncl
rote:
> Do you work for cisco? ...own stock?
>
> :)
>
> Aaron
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:55 PM
> To: Aaron
> Cc: 'chip'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re
seems like Cisco is
> still learning about Cisco :)
>
> Aaron
>
> -Original Message-
> From: chip [mailto:chip.g...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:56 PM
> To: Aaron
> Cc: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl o
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
Ok, so looking at the release notes. Only 4.2.1 supports acl's on BVI
interfaces and only in the egress direction. Looks like you can
apply it, but it may not work:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k
..@forthnetgroup.gr]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:18 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Cc: chip; Aaron
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2
>
> Many things missing
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/a
)
So I'm confused with that list of bvi limitations within the 4.2.x config doc.
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnetgroup.gr]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:18 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Cc: chip; Aaron
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on b
Many things missing
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.2/interfaces/configuration/guide/hc42irb.html#wp1011723
The following areas are /not/ supported on the BVI:
–Access Control Lists (ACLs). However, Layer 2 ACLs can be configured on each Layer 2 port
of
interface BVI101
description cust-bgp-1 vlan 101
ipv4 address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
ipv4 access-group cust-bgp-1-out-acl egress
This is gained support in 4.2.0 I think.
--chip
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Aaron wrote:
> Are acl's supported on BVI's ?
>
> I have a phy int g0/0/0/1 with
Are acl's supported on BVI's ?
I have a phy int g0/0/0/1 with a flow point (sub int) g0/0/0/1.10
l2transport config'd and put into l2vpn bg:bd with a routed int inside that
bg:bd as bvi 10
I would think that the appropriate location to place an ipv4 access-list
would be on the L3 interface , t
28 matches
Mail list logo
