[f-nsp] [HMS-SPAM] Re: Tagged interfaces

[Eric A Louie]

Thanks Jake.  Actually, since the end device is VLAN-aware, I will have separate 
vlan interfaces with individual IP addresses, or separate sub-interfaces unless 
I cannot assign vlans to the sub-interfaces, instead of using secondaries.  At 
least that's what I'm planning - haven't actually configured the ports yet.
 Much appreciated,
Eric Louie





________________________________
From: Jake Mertel <jake at nobistech.net>
To: Eric A Louie <elouie at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, October 4, 2012 5:13:33 PM
Subject: RE: [HMS-SPAM] Re: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces


The biggest difference is that each interface on a Cisco router has 1 “primary” 
address and the rest of the addresses are considered “secondary” addresses. For 
example:
 
Cisco world:
 
Int vlan 10
Ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
Ip address 10.0.1.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
Ip address 10.0.2.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
 
Foundry world:
 
Int ve 10
Ip address 10.0.0.1/24
Ip address 10.0.1.1/24
Ip address 10.0.2.1/24
 
On your Cisco device, if you wanted to remove one of the secondary addresses, 
you would type “no ip address 10.0.1.1 255.255.255.0 secondary”. You cannot type 
“no ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0” to remove the primary prefixes when there 
are secondary prefixes  configured, but you can change the primary prefix by 
typing “ip address 10.0.3.1 255.255.255.0”. This would leave all of your 
secondary addresses intact. 

 
I’ve caused myself a number of problems by forgetting to type “secondary” when 
configuring a Cisco interface to the point that I now have forced myself to type 
“ip address secondary” and then press the left arrow key to bring my cursor 
 back before the “secondary” and then typing the IP address. 

 
 
From:foundry-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
[mailto:foundry-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Eric A Louie
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:48 PM
To: Josh Farrelly; foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [HMS-SPAM] Re: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces
 
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/20121004/9a4a9bf4/attachment.html>