[c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2

[adam vitkovsky]

>"one router, two different switches, both switches are standalone and have
no multi-chassis capabilities".
If there's the same VLAN  running of the two switches you could terminate it
on two separate L3 sub-interfaces on the ASR9K /breaking the VLAN subnet in
two -loosing 4 addresses
Or instead of the BVI you could use a PW to aggregate the L2 traffic form
the disjoint VLAN and terminate the PW at ASR9K running L3 for the
aggregation ring
Or you can use the already mentioned L2 switch to aggregate the VLANS from
the two switches and connect it via trunk to ASR9K

adam

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:53 AM
To: ?ukasz Bromirski
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] acl on bvi in ios xr (9k) 4.1.2

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:37AM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> On 7/20/12 1:08 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >>	I think my point is..  If you are buying an asr9k you can likely 
> >>afford an ethernet switch vs using an expensive router port.
> >Sometimes BVI are the poor man's multi-chassis etherchannel to get 
> >redundant links to downstream switches...
> 
> On ASR9k you can configure MC-LAG, which is present for that kind of 
> scenarios, and you don't need to use BVI to build some tricky 
> workarounds.

Maybe I do not understand what MC-LAG does, but I'm not sure how it would
help here?

The scenario described is "one router, two different switches, both switches
are standalone and have no multi-chassis capabilities".  So you can do BVI
on the router, some sort of "backup interface", or...?

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