[c-nsp] HSRP, the VPLS way (ME3600)

Pshem Kowalczyk pshem.k at gmail.com
Wed May 22 17:29:23 EDT 2013

I personally find it easier to use the same methodology everywhere -
for me it's EVC/bridge domains/VPLS. At least I know that this
functionality is likely to remain in place for foreseeable future. But
also if you find yourself one day willing to extend it to some other
devices that don't have direct connectivity to the first one using
MPLS it's much easier then trying to thread a VLAN through an already
established network. Again this is personal preference - I don't like
to run MPLS on physical interface with a trunk on it (even with
point-to-point VLANs).

kind regards

On 23 May 2013 08:33, Jason Lixfeld <jason at lixfeld.ca> wrote:
> I'm planning on implementing some HSRP stuff between two switches that have no L2 connectivity between them; everything is MPLS/VPLS'ified.
> So my question is, what's the standard practise for doing HSRP the VPLS way?  Service instance/EVC/BD/SVI based or traditional trunk/SVI based?  This won't need any funky EVC features required by the devices connected to these two switches, but I'm just trying to understand if the latter of the two methods is starting to get antiquated and we should be doing EVC based stuff like this, as a best-practise, on whatever platforms support it?
> Or is this just silly and the traditional trunk/SVI method will be around forever, so why change it?
> Thanks in advance.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list