06-04-2009 07:26 AM - edited 03-04-2019 04:59 AM
I have several ATM subinterfaces I need to make part of the same network.
I have used ip unnumbered and bridge-groups in the past.
Looking for recomendations for which way is better or a new idea as well.
The only issue I have had with using ipnummnered is setting static host IPs. I see there is a polling option for unnumbered interfaces, not sure if it is better to avoid use of that or not.
Your input is much appreciated.
Thanks
dan-
06-04-2009 11:07 AM
Hello Dan,
I think bridge-groups with IRB are the better solution for this scenario.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
06-05-2009 10:29 AM
I am at a loss here.
I am upgrading from a 7500 to a 6500 and it is becoming very frustrating as many of the features are not availible.
I need to connect 100 ATM sub interfaces to the same network. They do not have to be bridged. I simply need them all part of the same network and have the ability to set static ip's on the host side of the atm curcuits.
I have tried using IP Unnumbered and this works fine with DHCP but not when setting a static IP on the host side. The 6500 does not support ip unnumbered connected host polling.(that i can see)
I have tried using bre-connect on the atm PVC's. This however can only bridge a PVC to one "unused" vlan ( PVC 1/1 maps to vlan 10, PVC 1/2 maps to VLAN 2 etc.) they cant be mapped to the same vlan.
I have tried using bridge domain on the ATM PVC's. This would appear to work ok except there appears to be a limit on how many PVC's or (ports) can belong to a single bridge domain, and its not enough to support all of my ATM PVC's that need connectivity to the same network.
Currently I am using a bridge-group on my 7500 router. I have a BVI interface and under the ATM subinterface bridge-group # is specified.
On the 6500 BVI interfaces dont appear supported and the bridge-group command under atm subinterface config is not there.
I also read that bridge protocol ieee is not supported under the 6500 platform.
Is there anything other command / feature etc. I can use to make this work?
Thanks!
06-05-2009 10:38 AM
Seems like it was a poor design since the beginning and the 6500 is enforcing sane routing more than the 7500.
You can use host routes to send traffic to whatever subinterface/pvc you want.
06-05-2009 10:43 AM
I couldnt agree more. Unfortunently im stuck with making this work/implementing something new.
This is how it is setup on a small scale:
BVI with address of 192.168.1.1
ATM 1.1 bridge group 1 > host IP 192.168.1.2
ATM 1.2 bridge group 1 > host IP 192.168.1.3
Both hosts gateway are set to BVI interface IP of 192.168.1.1
Whats the best way to move away from this?
Thanks,
06-05-2009 10:45 AM
Put back the 7500, advise customer of the seriousness of the issue, schedule a day zero global reconfiguration (spokes and remote).
06-05-2009 10:54 AM
Can you give me an example of what you meen by spokes and remote. Just want to make sure im on the same page by what you meen.
Thanks!
06-05-2009 11:09 AM
What Giuseppe is also saying. Check what is in the remote sites, ideally a router but it not even said.
06-05-2009 10:57 AM
Hello Dan,
after having read the other posts I agree with Paolo.
I've only one doubt a setup like the one you have described makes me think that at remote sites there are no real routers but devices able to perform bridging between a lan interface and an ATM pvc.
I once tried some boxes that were doing this between a lan interface and a serial interface.
if so the change is even bigger and would require the deployment of routers on the remote sites.
in the mid time keeping the old C7500 is a safe bet.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
06-05-2009 11:13 AM
The remote sides are all atm <> ethernet bridges.
06-05-2009 11:14 AM
make and model ?
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide