Re: [j-nsp] About the family ccc config stanza

Hi, all, > On 2/11/16, Saku Ytti wrote: >> On 10 February 2016 at 19:12, Pyxis LX wrote: >> >> >> Hey, >> >>> P.12: The vlan-ccc configuration does not have family ccc stanza, but >>> the extended-vlan-ccc configuration has. >>> >>> Can this be safely omitted?

[j-nsp] About the family ccc config stanza

Hi, All. I'm not quite sure when to use the "family ccc" config stanza. I know that this stanza should be used when applying a filter or a policer, but what if I don't need one? The official document is not quite clear about this, either:

Re: [j-nsp] About the family ccc config stanza

On 10 February 2016 at 19:12, Pyxis LX wrote: Hey, > P.12: The vlan-ccc configuration does not have family ccc stanza, but > the extended-vlan-ccc configuration has. > > Can this be safely omitted? The family needs to be CCC. But it often is by default due to IFL

Re: [j-nsp] About the family ccc config stanza

> The better to do is testing. > > For example I have a case when I'm forced to used something like this : > > ge-0/0/X { > encapsulation ethernet-ccc; > unit 0 { > family ccc; > } > } If you're using this for a port-based pseudowire (l2circuit) you only need "unit 0",

Re: [j-nsp] About the family ccc config stanza

The better to do is testing. For example I have a case when I'm forced to used something like this : ge-0/0/X { encapsulation ethernet-ccc; unit 0 { family ccc; } } With encapsulation ethernet-ccc i'm wondering what other family was expected ? but without the "familly

Re: [j-nsp] About the family ccc config stanza

Le 10/02/2016 19:13, sth...@nethelp.no a écrit : If you're using this for a port-based pseudowire (l2circuit) you only need "unit 0", not the "family ccc" part. Yep in theory. But on some platform the familly ccc stanza is mandatory, if not the encapsulation on the sub interface .0 remain