Hello tried another way this morning. reconfigured EVCs like this tu avoir tag popping : service instance 1439 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 1439 bridge-domain 1439 ! service instance 1440 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 1440 bridge-domain 1439 !
As soon as I add "l2protocol forward stp" or "l2protocol tunnel stp" on one of the two EVCs, I have spanning tree problems on my switches. Any idea ? Regards Le mar. 8 déc. 2020 à 11:33, BASSAGET Cédric <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hello, > > I need to interconnect two L2 domains. I was planning to use a me3600 for > this : > > interface port-channel 1 > ... > service instance 1439 ethernet > encapsulation dot1q 1439 second-dot1q 1-4094 > rewrite ingress tag pop 1 > bridge-domain 1439 > ! > service instance 1440 ethernet > encapsulation dot1q 1440 second-dot1q 1-4094 > rewrite ingress tag pop 1 > bridge-domain 1439 > ! > > Works fine, hosts on same C-VLAN on both sides of bridge-domain can ping. > > As I need my interconnection to be STP-transparent, I tried to add > "l2protocol forward stp" on these 2 EVCs. > > This resulted in side effects on my backbone, and I saw STP events on the > other side of my port-channel (n3k switch) : > 2020 Dec 8 06:32:37 N3K-eqx-pa3-1 %STP-2-BLOCK_PVID_LOCAL: Blocking > port-channel1 on MST0000. Inconsistent local vlan. > > Question : why is the port-channel affected by l2protocol forward on an > EVC ? > > I guess I'll have to remove the "second-dot1q 1-4094" to allow untagged > trafic on EVCs, and make L2CP work correctly. > > Is this the right way to do ? > Thanks for your help. > Regards, > Cédric > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
