Why the inconsistent support for multicast with VRF-lite?

Unanswered Question
May 26th, 2009
User Badges:

I have implemented several virtual networks using VRF-lite across 6500s, 4500s, 3750s, 3560s, 3550s, and now ME 3400Gs. All of these platforms support IP multicasting within VRFs except the 4500 Sup V and Sup IV. The Sup 6-E supports it. This seems like a very arbitrary decision. Does anyone understand the rationale for this?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Laurent Aubert Tue, 05/26/2009 - 18:06
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,


4500 is handled by a different Business Unit (BU) internally so that's why the road-map in term of feature support may differ.



8r-murphy Wed, 05/27/2009 - 06:10
User Badges:

I would hope that the different BUs would try to be on the same sheet of music. Is the Sup 6-E in a different BU from the Sup V?

Laurent Aubert Wed, 05/27/2009 - 06:14
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

BU is per platform not per cards

4500/4900 belong to the same BU.

35xx/37xx/29xx/34xx belong to another BU


iyde Wed, 05/27/2009 - 22:25
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

My guess is that it's hardware related, i.e. something might be missing in SupIV and SupV in order for it to be able to handle multicast in vrf lite.

But it's only a guess, because it looks rather arbitrary, as originally stated.

8r-murphy Thu, 05/28/2009 - 06:20
User Badges:

I would be surprised if it is hardware related. My guess is the 4500 BU does not want to incur the cost of porting the latest IOS version to the Sup V. Maybe they already know the EOL date for the Sup V.


This Discussion