[f-nsp] Tagged interfaces

[Eric A Louie]

Josh, that's a great document, thank you.

I'm going to do the testing in the lab, but are there any functional advantages 
to using VLAN configurations versus sub-interface configuration on the Cisco 
device when converting from the Foundry Ethernet multiple IP address 
configuration?
 Much appreciated,
Eric Louie
619-743-5375 




________________________________
From: Josh Farrelly <Josh.Farrelly at manukau.ac.nz>
To: Eric A Louie <elouie at yahoo.com>; "foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net" 
<foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thu, October 4, 2012 3:30:11 PM
Subject: Re: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces


Hi Eric

For the most part, yes to both.

Take a look at this document here (pages 19 & 
20): http://community.brocade.com/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/1848-102-1-3553/Brocade-Cisco%20Comparison.pdf


Kind Regards,


Josh Farrelly
Infrastructure Architect, ICTS.
Manukau Institute of Technology
From: Eric A Louie <elouie at yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 5 October 2012 11:07 AM
To: "foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net" <foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces


I'm preparing to translate some Foundry configurations to Cisco.
 
As far as I can tell, the tagged interfaces are really just 802.1q trunk ports.  
Is that an accurate assessment?
 
Foundry allows multiple IP addresses on the Ethernet interface.  Do I have a 
choice to use vlan interfaces and/or Ethernet sub-interfaces on the Cisco to 
provide the same functionality?

 Much appreciated,
Eric Louie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/foundry-nsp/attachments/20121004/3a466231/attachment.html>