Hi, I've used REP before in a 7600/ME3400 configuration where a 7600 would anchor a bunch of ME3400 rings together and each ME3400 ring was on the same SVI, for example vlan 50. So 20 7600 ports, each connecting to a ring of 8 ME3400s; 160 devices all on the same SVI. Each of the 20 ports was it's own REP segment. This all works find and dandy.
I'm looking do the same thing with 4500s but connect them to a pair of ASR9Ks using REP-AG (knowing that the 4500 ports facing the ASR9Ks need to be rep edge no-neighbor). In doing so, I'm wondering if the design philosophy can be the same, relatively speaking, like so (not sanity checked): ! ASR1 ! int lo0 ipv4 address 1.1.1.1/32 ! int te0/0/0/0 description 4500 ring 1 int te0/0/0/0.1 l2transport encap untagged int te0/0/0/0.500 l2transport encap dot1q 500 ! int te0/0/0/1 description 4500 ring 2 int te0/0/0/0.1 l2transport encap untagged int te0/0/0/0.500 l2transport encap dot1q 500 ! int BVI500 vrf internet ipv4 address 1.1.1.1/24 ! l2vpn bridge group REP-CORE bridge-domain REP-CORE interface te0/0/0/0.500 interface te0/0/0/1.500 ! routed interface BVI500 ! ! bridge group REP-AG bridge-domain REP-AG interface te0/0/0/0.1 interface te0/0/0/1.1 ! vfi REP-AG vpn-id 1 neigh 2.2.2.2 pw-id 1 ! ! ! spanning-tree repag REP interface te0/0/0/0.1 interface te0/0/0/1.1 ! ! ASR2 ! int lo0 ipv4 address 2.2.2.2/32 ! int te0/0/0/0 description 4500 ring 1 int te0/0/0/0.1 l2transport encap untagged int te0/0/0/0.500 l2transport encap dot1q 500 ! int te0/0/0/1 description 4500 ring 2 int te0/0/0/0.1 l2transport encap untagged int te0/0/0/0.500 l2transoprt encap dot1q 500 ! int BVI500 vrf internet ipv4 address 1.1.1.2/24 ! l2vpn bridge group REP-CORE bridge-domain REP-CORE interface te0/0/0/0.500 interface te0/0/0/1.500 ! routed interface BVI500 ! ! bridge group REP-AG bridge-domain REP-AG interface te0/0/0/0.1 interface te0/0/0/1.1 ! vfi REP-AG vpn-id 1 neigh 1.1.1.1 pw-id 1 ! ! ! spanning-tree repag REP interface te0/0/0/0.1 interface te0/0/0/1.1 ! With the exception of making sure vrf internet has per-vrf label allocation mode set to make sure the MPLS/BVI thing works, is any of what I'm doing here just dumb from what anyone can see? Thanks in advance. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
