[c-nsp] Re: cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 26, Issue 80

[Tim Stevenson]

No, the PVLAN restriction is a hardware limitation.

Tim

At 12:18 AM 1/20/2005, cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net stated:
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:27:34 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner at cluebyfour.org>
>Subject: [c-nsp] Re: 6500 Port Monitor
>Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501191918040.13619 at whammy.cluebyfour.org>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Tim Stevenson wrote:
>
> > This problem has to do with the particular line card you are using for the
> > span destination ports, ie, one of the 8:1 oversubscribed GETX blades.
> >
> > There are two solutions to your problem: either move the gig and 100M SPAN
> > dest ports to 2 different muxing ASICs on this module (eg, port 1 & port 9,
> > they are in contiguous groups of 8 ports); or, upgrade to 12.1(26)E, where
> > this problem is resolved.
>
>By chance would this same fix apply to the same problems with 48-port
>FE/TX blades in the 6500s?  I've run into problems in the past where I
>couldn't span to or from a port if there was a pvlan port configured in
>the same ASIC bundle...
>
>jms



Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Catalyst 6500
Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.