So I'm just trying to understand how VPLS is 'supposed' to work on ME3600s...
This seems to work:
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/3
description Facing CE
switchport trunk allowed vlan none
switchport mode trunk
logging event link-status
no cdp enable
service instance 1 ethernet
encapsulation dot1q 4013
rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
!
!
bridge-domain 4013
member GigabitEthernet0/3 service-instance 1
!
interface Vlan4013
vrf forwarding management
no ip address
member vfi management
!
#show l2vpn vfi name management
Legend: RT=Route-target, S=Split-horizon, Y=Yes, N=No
VFI name: management, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP
VPN ID: 4013, VE-ID: 10129, VE-SIZE: 10
RD: 21949:2194904013, RT: 21949:4013, 21949:2194904013
Bridge-Domain 4013 attachment circuits:
Vlan4013
Pseudo-port interface: pseudowire100036
Interface Peer Address VE-ID Local Label Remote Label S
pseudowire100037 72.15.50.33 10033 299 354 Y
However this does not:
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/3
description Facing CE
switchport trunk allowed vlan none
switchport mode trunk
logging event link-status
no cdp enable
service instance 1 ethernet
encapsulation dot1q 4013
rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
!
!
bridge-domain 4013
member GigabitEthernet0/3 service-instance 1
member vfi management
!
#show l2vpn vfi name management
Legend: RT=Route-target, S=Split-horizon, Y=Yes, N=No
VFI name: management, state: down, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP
VPN ID: 4013, VE-ID: 10129, VE-SIZE: 10
RD: 21949:2194904013, RT: 21949:4013, 21949:2194904013
Bridge-Domain 4013 attachment circuits:
Pseudo-port interface: pseudowire100036
Interface Peer Address VE-ID Local Label Remote Label S
pseudowire100037 72.15.50.33 10033 299 354 Y
So even though in the latter example, vfi management is a member of
bridge-domain 4013, it can't seem to find the attachment circuit. I get that
the AC wouldn't be Vlan4013, but I'd sorta expect it to know that it's Gi0/3 si
1. I'm assuming that since we can now map a vfi to a bridge-domain, an SVI is
no longer required, unless the VPLS instance is routed VPLS; we'd need
somewhere to apply the IP and mask. Is this an incorrect assumption or is
something not working that really should be working?
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/
