[cisco-bba] vi <> subiface

[Dennis Peng]

Mark Walliser [mark.walliser at green.ch] wrote:
> hi "boradbandaggregators"
> 
> can anyone tell me, what the (dis)advandages between using plain
> virtual-interfaces (no virtual-template subinterface) or using subinterfaces
> are?
>
> as i understand, using subinterfaces uses less memory and causes less
> cpu-impact - so why would one want to use plain vi's instead?

Some commands are not sub-interface capable. You can test to see if
your configuration on the vtemplate is sub-interface capable by using
the command "test virtual-template <n> subinterface". You also need to
take into consideration any commands which may be applied via your AAA
server.

> is it also true, that subinterfaces are not pre-clonable? why?

Yes this is true. Pre-cloning was implemented because the overhead of
creating a full virtual-access interface was substantial. Compared to
full virtual-access interfaces, sub-interfaces have a much lower
overhead, so "pre-cloning" isn't necessary.

Dennis

> tnx for some comments!
> greetz, mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba