[c-nsp] Frame PVC -> 802.1q VLAN

[Rolf Mendelsohn]

Hi David,

We have this working on 1841 / 2811's (running 12.4.X).

In addtion, if you would like to 'terminate' bridged traffic at Layer-3, then 
you need to use 2 interfaces - i.e. Vlan's or a crossover from Fa0/0 <--> 
Fa0/1.

i.e. 

PC <--> Frame-relay Ethernet Bridge <----------Serial------> Frame Sub_int 
<--Router doing bridging from frame to Vlan--> SWITCH <--L3 Termination

L3 Termination could be the same router (on a different ethernet / 802.1q 
subinterface, and could be plain routing or PPPoE).


Below is a config:

interface Serial0/0/0.6 point-to-point
 description 64k Frame Link to PDFS (DLCI 29) - CC-9431658
 no cdp enable
 frame-relay interface-dlci 29
 bridge-group 1

interface FastEthernet0/0.5
 description Briding VLAN for Frame-relay links
 encapsulation dot1Q 5
 no cdp enable
 bridge-group 1
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 description Link to Switch to Terminate PPPoE sessions
 no ip address
 speed 100
 full-duplex
 pppoe enable group pppoe1
 no cdp enable

Let me know if you need more info.

Btw I have also confirmed the bridging is support (at least allowed in config 
mode) on 12.2-28SB4. Perhaps all you needed to do was to configure the 802.1q 
vlan before trying to enable bridging.

gw1.wdh1.na(config-subif)#bridge-group 1

Bridging on a LAN or HDLC subinterface requires that the interface be already
configured for 802.10 SDE encapsulation, Inter Switch Link (ISL) 
encapsulation,
or 802.1Q encapsulation

gw1.wdh1.na(config-subif)#encapsulation dot1Q 667
gw1.wdh1.na(config-subif)#bridge-group 1

cheers
/rolf

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:53, David Freedman wrote:
>  >Hmm, above you say "...at the IP level" and here you say "bridge".  So
>  >which do really want; layer 2 interworking or layer 3 forwarding?
>
> I actually want to bridge raw IP packets , I know that sounds strange
> but would be the terminology I would use when configuring IRB between a
> serial interface and an ethernet one (i.e Frame-Relay frames arriving on
> serial interface have their IP payload stripped out, and put in an
> ethernet frame and sent over the ethernet)
> I'm reluctant to call it "routed" since no IP routing is taking place.
>
>  >I think you are more looking for L2VPN Interworking.  It's generally
>  >used
>  >between PE devices but I suppose could be done local to the same PE
>
> I didn't try L2VPN interworking (we use this already to achieve the same
> thing across the network) simply because I assumed that it would not
> work locally on the same box.
>
> Having just tried it, I can confirm it does not work, allthough saying
> that the looped back pseudowire seems to have established itself:
>
> Router#show l2tun
>   Tunnel and Session Information Total tunnels 2 sessions 2
>
> LocID RemID Remote Name   State  Remote Address  Port  Sessions L2TPclass
> 11333 52675 R4            est    10.8.8.8        0     1
> interworking-cl
>
> LocID      RemID      TunID      Username, Intf/
>    State
>                                   Vcid, Circuit
> 42051      42053      11333      1, Fa2/0.200:200
>    est
>
> LocID RemID Remote Name   State  Remote Address  Port  Sessions L2TPclass
> 52675 11333 R4            est    10.9.9.9        0     1
> interworking-cl
>
> LocID      RemID      TunID      Username, Intf/
>    State
>                                   Vcid, Circuit
> 42053      42051      52675      1, Se1/0:200
>    est
>
>
> Router#show l2tun session  all | in sent
>      8 Packets sent, 0 received
>      1402 Bytes sent, 0 received
>      0 Packets sent, 7 received
>      0 Bytes sent, 1028 received
>
>  >If can tell us a little more about exactly what you need to do, perhaps I
>  >can figure out some other alternatives.
>
> I've two WAN circuits that I'd like to be able to interconnect with
> eachother in a location for a few weeks, one is delivered as frame relay
> NNI bundle and the other is a VLAN bundle over Gigabit Ethernet, neither
> circuit can be changed such that they are the same technology and the
> goal is to be able to use the bridged link to carry IP traffic on behalf
> of a service requiring a full IPv4 routing table (hence VRF out of the
> question).
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Dave.
>
>
> - --
> =========
> bep
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

-- 
Rolf Mendelsohn
ITA/MAXNET
+244 923524981