[c-nsp] VRF-Lite Question

[Ray Burkholder]

> Yes, and this is why the addition of "distributed layer3" to 
> the cisco campus network gravy train was not such a good idea 
> - the smaller and thus cheaper routers have weaker 
> capabilities in layer3.
> 
> If you can afford 6500s and sup32s in each building then all 
> fine and well, but you've got more money than I've got.

Nope, not I, although I do day-dream of the day.


> 
> No. The 3550/3750s support 802.1q tags and that's it.
> 
> To repeat myself: lots of per-VRF L3 point-to-point SVIs and 
> vlan tagging, lots of routing adjacencies. That's the only 
> way you'll get this done on 3550/3750s. They're limited platforms.
> 
> We have a lot as outlying site routers, and I've done 
> extensive investigation of how we could least-effort link 
> them into our shiny 6500 network. The answer is, a lot of typing.
> 

One more wrinkle.  Some of these interbuilding links are through a
provider's private vlan system.  No Q.  No Q in Q.  What is the
recommendation for that?

Ray.


-- 
Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at 
http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.