On 1 September 2017 at 02:02, Patrick Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > Interesting you should mention the PPPoE thing as all of our ASR920 P/PE are > deployed using BDI for NNI facing interfaces and we carry bucketloads > PPPoE traffic across them all without any issues. > > The only thing I had to be weary of was accidentally putting two service > instances in the bridge domain for the NNI IP interface as it would spit a > ASIC programming error for FRR and start blackholing some labeled traffic. > But as long as you're meticulous about that it seems fine. > > Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:12:05AM +0100, James Bensley wrote: >> https://null.53bits.co.uk/index.php?page=mpls-over-phy-vs-eff-bdi-svi
Interesting! I maybe mis-remembering as it was about 6+ months ago but we had ASR920s and ME3600s both running pseudowires back to central ASR1001s, and maybe the problem was with the ASR1001s instead of the ASR920s. Whichever device type it was (I thought it was the ASR920s though) I asked TAC and they confirmed it's not supported (pseudowires with PPPoE payload when the core facing interface is a BDI). I searched and searched my self and couldn't find any documentation saying that it wasn't supported, TAC did eventually show me some documentation that said it wasn't supported. (In-fact yes, it was the ASR1001, re-reading my table linked above, in none of the permutations is the ASR1001 listed as working when transporting PPPoE with a BDI core interface. I have such a bad memory, that is why I have to write this stuff down :S ) Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
