Mailing List Archive: nsp: foundry

QinQ on FLS

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

robhass at gmail

Mar 13, 2012, 5:46 PM

Post #1 of 4 (725 views)
Permalink

QinQ on FLS

Hi

I have two switches, one is Cisco 6500, second is Brocade FLS624. Both
are interconnected by 10GE link and I have to enable on both switches
single GE port with QinQ.

I tried to configure:

! 0/4/1 - uplink to Cat6500
! 0/1/1 - GE port to Customer
!
vlan 100
tagged e0/4/1
untagged e0/1/1
!
tag-type 9100 ethe 0/1/1

But it applied tag-type to all ports on the switch - which is not what I want.

Is below configuration allow me to configure Q-in-Q to individual
ports on FLS624 ? :

vlan 100
tagged e0/4/1
untagged e0/1/1
!
tag-profile 9100
interface ethe 0/1/1
tag-profile enable

BTW. What is difference between super-aggregated-VLAN and Q-in-Q using
tag-type/tag-profile ?

Rob
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

maxime.baudin at ac-rennes

Mar 14, 2012, 1:46 AM

Post #2 of 4 (722 views)
Permalink

Re: QinQ on FLS [In reply to]

Le 14/03/2012 01:46, Robert Hass a écrit :
> Hi
>
> I have two switches, one is Cisco 6500, second is Brocade FLS624. Both
> are interconnected by 10GE link and I have to enable on both switches
> single GE port with QinQ.

Hi,
I had to configure QinQ with FLS few years ago

in the Brocade documentation I found :

FastIron(config)#tag-type 9100 e 11 to 12
FastIron(config)#aggregated-vlan
Note that since ports 11 and 12 belong to the port region 1 – 12, the
802.1Q tag actually applies to ports 1 – 12.

So tag-type is a bit too "global" for you.

> Is below configuration allow me to configure Q-in-Q to individual
> ports on FLS624 ? :
Add :

"aggregated-vlan" in global conf and It's exactly what we did.
It works perfectly.

> BTW. What is difference between super-aggregated-VLAN and Q-in-Q using
> tag-type/tag-profile ?

From my point of view, it's just a vocabulary difference.
Aggregated-Vlan is associated vith "tag-profile" and QinQ with "tag-type".

Both does standard 802.1Q encapsulation.

From Brocade documentation :

"802.1Q-in-Q tagging provides finer granularity for configuring 802.1Q
tagging, enabling you to configure 802.1Q
tag-types on a group of ports."

Finer granularity.....on a group of ports... Still searching :)

Best regards,
Maxime

--
Maxime Baudin - Rectorat de Rennes
SERIA-R, 62 rue Dupont des loges - 35000 Rennes
Tel : 02 23 42 16 88 Fax : 16 60
E-mail :Maxime.Baudin(at)ac-rennes.fr

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

nick at foobar

Mar 14, 2012, 2:57 AM

Post #3 of 4 (709 views)
Permalink

Re: QinQ on FLS [In reply to]

On 14/03/2012 08:46, Maxime Baudin wrote:
> Finer granularity.....on a group of ports... Still searching

This sort of thing is generally a hardware limitation caused by the fact
that all the ethernet ports in a port group are controlled by a single
asic. There are lots of limitations like this on the FI boxes. One that
particularly annoys me is that sflow conflicts with port mirroring. i.e.
if you need to monitor a single port in a port group, you need to disable
sflow on all the ports in that port group. I've had to set up scripting to
selectively re-enable sflow in this situation because it's caused me a lot
of grief.

Nick
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

ahebert at pubnix

Mar 21, 2012, 5:33 AM

Post #4 of 4 (677 views)
Permalink

Re: QinQ on FLS [In reply to]

Well,

As a Metro provider, trying to find devices to offer 802.1ad at the
customer (CE's) is a pricey proposition...
( Our pipes can pass thru anything from dark fiber to cup&string
links )

The way the vendor are separating the 802.1ad, 802.1ah and MPLS
features from the 802.1Q is getting annoying.

Beside MPLS, the other are quite static in term of setup and from
my experience with FPGA, this shouldn't be a stopping block.

Right now the cheapest device for a CE is a Cisco ME3400EG ( 4 x
1Gbps ) at ~$4k each :( while 28 ports 10Gb switches only cost ~$7k.

PS: As for MPLS, the ~$10k tax most Vendor ask to have it in Core
devices is sickening...

-----
Alain Hebert ahebert [at] pubnix
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443

On 03/14/12 05:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/03/2012 08:46, Maxime Baudin wrote:
>> Finer granularity.....on a group of ports... Still searching
> This sort of thing is generally a hardware limitation caused by the fact
> that all the ethernet ports in a port group are controlled by a single
> asic. There are lots of limitations like this on the FI boxes. One that
> particularly annoys me is that sflow conflicts with port mirroring. i.e.
> if you need to monitor a single port in a port group, you need to disable
> sflow on all the ports in that port group. I've had to set up scripting to
> selectively re-enable sflow in this situation because it's caused me a lot
> of grief.
>
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads