[AusNOG] dot1q-tunnel and cisco nexus 5000s

[Sean K. Finn]

Macca the Ghetto setup will work if you have higher than 1500 mtu on the network, jumbo frames should allow the ghetto approach.

Effectively Q-in-Q passthrough without any knowledge of it going through the stuff in the middle.

Some devices might munch the packets though, but generally you need the extra packet size to allow the tags through.

And I've done the Ghetto loopback to pull out a QinQ tag in an emergency, but you get lots of 'VLAN MISMATCH' errors.

S.


-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of McDonald Richards
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:27 PM
To: 'ausnog at lists.ausnog.net'
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] dot1q-tunnel and cisco nexus 5000s

MPLS is not that difficult to implement -  and once you have, it's about 3 lines of configuration to build an ethernet pseudowire on most devices but this only works well in point to point scenarios.

VPLS can work if you aren't flood too many MACs and you don't want your VPLS PE devices to actually read/interpret/manipulate the tags (lots of feature gap).

If you are doing basic tag stacking in a local area that you have complete control of and your device does not support q-in-q, you can do the good ghetto way and just loop a cable from a trunk/tagged port into an access/untagged port (access port will add a second layer of tags inside that VLAN if it transmits out a trunk port).

Macca



On 21/03/13 5:19 PM, "Sean K. Finn" <sean.finn at ozservers.com.au> wrote:

>I, too, am interested in hearing *anyones* opinions of dragging tagged 
>vlan traffic across a network like this without the use of QinQ.
>
>Has anyone had experiencing using other protocols, for example, 
>Ethernet over IP, or VPLS or any other of the billion protocol 
>abstractions to achieve something like this?
>
>Does anyone have any *theories* of how to drag VLAN traffic tagged 
>across a non QinQ aware switch setup, for example, over layer 3 perhaps?
>
>All thoughts welcome.
>
>S.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
>[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of David Gwynne
>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:02 PM
>To: Peter Tiggerdine
>Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] dot1q-tunnel and cisco nexus 5000s
>
>On 21/03/2013, at 2:54 PM, Peter Tiggerdine <ptiggerdine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because it's a data centre switch not a services aggregation switch 
>>with the primary purpose of unified fabric.
>
>thats a very arbitrary distinction to me.
>
>> What's the use case for q-in-q in datacentres?
>
>we wanted to support the provisioning of private networks between 
>groups of virtual machines, all hosted in the same DC. it would have 
>been nice to simply configure the vlan tags on the hypervisors and let 
>them get tunnelled over the single vlan all the hypervisors are plugged 
>together with on the 5ks. without q-in-q we need to put the vlans on 
>the switches, which is annoying where we are cos we can't arbitrarily allocate tags.
>
>dlg
>
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:46 PM, David Gwynne <loki at animata.net> wrote:
>> does anyone know why q-in-q isnt available on nexus 5000 kit?
>> 
>> dlg
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog