nanog mailing list archives
Re: VPC=S/MLT?
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:25:33 -0600
Nice link. Thanks Joshua. -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd" -Jack Herer On 1/18/2012 11:57 AM, joshua sahala wrote:
vpc has a long list of unclear and/or seemingly contradictory caveats (spread across multiple cisco docs/webpages). when it doesn't work (as expected), it can be challenging to find someone with tac who can actually tell you why (or how to fix it properly). if your needs are fairly basic, are all cisco, follow their dc3.0 verbatim, and don't mind the lack of features on the nexus platform, then it isn't a bad box (if rather expensive for the lack of features...like ipv6 for is-is). also, be prepared to keep spanning-tree around and keep bugging your cisco se/am about trill support (as opposed to fabricpath...see tdp vs ldp) if you *might* want to involve the n7k in routing at all, then http://bradhedlund.com/2010/12/16/routing-over-nexus-7000-vpc-peer-link-yes-and-no/ offers a much clearer explanation than cisco.com about what works and what doesn't (and whether-or-not tac might try to help) hth /joshua
Current thread:
- VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? Joel jaeggli (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? Charles Spurgeon (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? Charles Spurgeon (Jan 14)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 17)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? joshua sahala (Jan 18)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 18)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 13)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? -Hammer- (Jan 18)
- Re: VPC=S/MLT? Joel jaeggli (Jan 13)