[c-nsp] End to end keepalive over QinQ provider

[Chris Evans]

Agreed.. L3 is the answer.. This is actually for a customer of mine that I
consult for, so easier said than done to get them to switch. The provider
can tunnel if it if you pay for the "plus" service which they don't want to
do either..

I haaatttee L2 extensions and curse any company that is helping to bring it
back.. Mainly Cisco and VMWare!!

Thx for the help all!

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tim Jackson <jackson.tim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Cisco 7600 won't tunnel LACP.. I wouldn't say strange equipment doesn't do
> it. Lots of "normal" gear sucks at it. L2PT is bad, and all of the gear is
> bad (and it should feel bad).
>
> One option would be to buy "cheap" ethenet NIDs that can do L2PT tunneling
> to uncommon MAC addresses to avoid the underlying equipment from eating the
> frames. Accedian/Adva/Overture/Probably others can all do that.
>
> Ethernet CFM could potentially do what you're after, but there's not going
> to be a built in mechanism to disable a port, or take a port out of the
> port-channel.
>
> Go L3 instead across your two links.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Ross Halliday <
> ross.halliday at wtccommunications.ca> wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> > > bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Evans
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:19 PM
> > > To: Adam Vitkovsky
> > > Cc: cisco-nsp
> > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] End to end keepalive over QinQ provider
> > >
> > > I have two paths that I'd like to port-channel. Since they don't
> support
> > > LACP the only thing I can do is do static configuration, but if the
> path
> > > of
> > > one of the links takes a hit there is no end to end notifications that
> > > will
> > > cause an interface to go down or be taken out of forwarding. With LACP
> > > you
> > > can do this because the ports will debundle. I was hoping that CFM
> would
> > > take the path out of service, but I don't think that is the case.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > You mean the LACP negotiation is eaten by your provider? What kind of
> > strange equipment/config are they running?
> >
> > UDLD is designed to do what you want - will that function?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Ross
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>