[c-nsp] Layer Two tunneling question (advice needed)

[Ramesh Karki]

Hi,

In this case L2TPv3 would be the best option, but I don't think Cat65xx
support L2TPv3 till date. now you can think about EoMPLS l2 vpn to exchange
ethernet frames between sites.

quick look ethernet over MPLS example :
http://fengnet.com/book/MPLS%20Configuration%20on%20Cisco%20IOS%20Software/ch11lev1sec2.html

Thanks
Ramesh


On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:23 PM, John Neiberger <jneiberger at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've never had to configure any sort of layer two tunneling, so I'm
> not really familiar with my options. I'm pretty sure there are many
> here who have done this, so I thought I'd ask. What we need to do is
> fairly simple. Here's a basic map:
>
>
> DeviceA ------ [6500] -------(fiber run to different site)--------
> [6500] ------- DeviceB
>
> At the moment, the devices on each end are connected to layer three
> interfaces, not switchports, and the link between the 6500s is routed.
> We've run into a legacy issue and the solution is to put DeviceA and
> DeviceB on the same vlan. However, we do not want to change the
> routing between the 6500s. We really, *really* want to leave the
> routing in place. Switching to an all layer-two design causes some
> other headaches for us that you don't see because of my simplified
> diagram.
>
> So, I think some sort of layer two tunneling is in order. What are our
> options if we want to make DeviceA and DeviceB think they're local to
> each other and in the same LAN? I've heard of L2TP and of various MPLS
> techniques that might solve this, but I've just never needed to use
> them and really know nothing about how they're configured or if
> they're even legitimate options.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Many thanks!
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>