[c-nsp] Spanning-Tree vs. EoMPLS links in SXI2?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 09:10:13AM -0700, Ben Basler (bbasler) wrote:
> As you might know - Cat6500 is an ingress forwarding model - so the
> forwarding engine on the ingress linecard does the work. If there is no
> local FWD engine, the PFC on the sup does the work. In case of 67xx
> modules a CFC relays the header to the PFC.

This much I understood...

> Having said that, there are some subtle differences how L2 PDUs (read:
> LACP, STP, VTP, CDP, 802.1x, etc.) are handled by the 3B/3BXL and
> 3C/3CXL.

... and that's what I assumed, since both "your" bug ID and the other
one specifically mention 3C.

(Which is actually quite interesting - so far, the most prominent
difference between 3B and 3C has been the size of the CAM tables, but 
there must be more things under the hood...)

> All in all - best case here to contact TAC and point them to the bug id
> I mentioned - they should be able to verify if you are indeed hitting
> this or something else.

Already did so (well, e-mailed our gold partner, who hopefully forwarded
to TAC - haven't heard from him).

Again, thanks very much for that hint.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20100315/c34982e8/attachment.bin>