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

[Adam Vitkovsky]

How about running LACP with the 7600 and let the ISP to build just one PW
(pipe) between your two endpoints rather than trying to bundle 2 pipes
yourself. 


L2 end-to-end, Ethernet for that matter has so much potential like any other
type of virtualization. 
It's just a pity that after having it around for so many years it's just
recently becoming mature in its basic functionalities, not speaking about
the advanced stuff like EVPN. 


adam
-----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 8:11 PM
To: Tim Jackson
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] End to end keepalive over QinQ provider

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/
>
_______________________________________________
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/