[c-nsp] ASR-901 EoMPLS qinq

[Spyros Kakaroukas]

Hi,

I think what you're proposing is supported. What's definitely not supported is matching on 2 tags ( encapsulation dot1q X second-dot1q Y ) and then pushing that onto a pseudowire.

That aside, keep in mind that there are *A LOT* of odd limitations on that platform. I deployed one for the tiniest of sites, just to terminate a few pseudowires, and I'm pretty sure if ( when ) I ever need to upgrade it to something else, it will remain in my warehouse forever. ASR920, while still being relatively new, is much better in terms of features.


My thoughts and words are my own.

Spyros








On 07/07/2016, 11:28, "cisco-nsp on behalf of Mattias Gyllenvarg" <cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net on behalf of mattias at gyllenvarg.se> wrote:

>We have moved to 920-4 for these situations.
>901 has been a let down.
>
>tis 5 juli 2016 kl 17:48 skrev Divo Zito <divozito at gmail.com>:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>> I need to transport some double-tagged customers from SiteA to SiteB
>> through a GbE link and to rewrite S-VLANs so that those I use on the
>> aggregation-side interface are different from those I receive on the
>> customer facing port.
>>
>> customers                                              aggregation
>> (S-VLAN, C-VLAN)                                  (S-VLAN, C-VLAN)
>>
>> (10,100-199)\                                        /(20,100-199)
>> (11,100-199) -- [ A901-siteA ] ---- [ A901-siteB ] -- (21,100-199)
>> (12,100-199)/                                        \(22,100-199)
>>
>> I was considering to use ASR-901s with EVC xconnect, something similar
>> to the following config...
>>
>> Site-A:
>>
>> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
>>  description Customer facing port
>>  service instance 10 ethernet
>>   encapsulation dot1q 10
>>   rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
>>   xconnect 10.0.0.1 1 encapsulation mpls
>>  service instance 11 ethernet
>>   encapsulation dot1q 11
>>   rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
>>   xconnect 10.0.0.1 2 encapsulation mpls
>>  ...
>>
>> Site-B:
>>
>> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
>>  description Aggregation facing port
>>  service instance 10 ethernet
>>   encapsulation dot1q 20
>>   rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
>>   xconnect 10.0.0.2 1 encapsulation mpls
>>  service instance 11 ethernet
>>   encapsulation dot1q 21
>>   rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
>>   xconnect 10.0.0.2 2 encapsulation mpls
>>  ...
>>
>> ... but on the "Configuring EoMPLS" guide [1] I found this:
>>
>> Restrictions for EoMPLS
>> - EoMPLS xconnect port with double-tagged encapsulation is not supported
>>
>> Now I'm wondering whether my idea is really feasible with ASR-901 or not.
>> If it's not, any hint on which low budget platform can I use? ASR-920?
>>
>> 1]
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/asr_901/Configuration/Guide/b_asr901-scg/b_asr901-scg_chapter_010100.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/


This e-mail and any attachment(s) contained within are confidential and are intended only for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. The information contained in this communication may be privileged, or exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete the communication without retaining any copies. Connecticore SA is not responsible for, nor endorses, any opinion, recommendation, conclusion, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information contained in this communication.