[c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X

[Mark Tinka]

On 26/Mar/15 17:41, Eric Van Tol wrote:

> Only in the sense that an "SVI" on the ASR920 is a BDI.

I can live with that :-). The concept is still the same, just that SVI's 
are replaced with BDI's.

I can imagine how hard it would have been to find this out on the back 
of poor documentation.

>    Of course, ports can have IP addresses applied directly to them,

Nice to still have that. Good for simple implementations where only an 
IP service is sold directly off the port, negating the need for EVC's.

>   but in order to perform switching or VLAN trunking, service instances and BDIs are required:
>
> interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
>   mtu 9216
>   no ip address
>   load-interval 30
>   negotiation auto
>   service instance 8 ethernet
>    encapsulation dot1q 8
>    rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
>    bridge-domain 8
>   !
>   service instance 600 ethernet
>    encapsulation dot1q 600
>    rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
>    bridge-domain 600
>   !
> !
> interface BDI600
>   ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
>   ip verify unicast reverse-path
> end

That's good.

>
> And yes, it looks like uRPF works.  :-)

Finally!

I've just resigned to the fact that there are some thing which will 
never make it to the ME3600X/3800X, for reasons unknown. On the back of 
the ASR920, I doubt much effort is going to be expended on the 
ME3600X/3800X any longer.

We'd all do well to start deploying ASR920 in the coming few years.

Mark.