Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Frame Relay Physical int versus Multipoint interface ?

Hi,

In my lab I have created a 'Hub & Spoke' network. I want my spokes to reside on the same network address so I can choose between using the physical interface at the hub or a multipoint interface at the hub.

Why would I prefer one technique to the other ? As I see it 'one' physical interface is taken up by both methods !

Also with both techniques I can achieve solutions using inverse arp or static mappings.

What am I missing here ?

Regards,

Phil.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Hall of Fame Super Bronze

Re: Frame Relay Physical int versus Multipoint interface ?

It could be a migration to point-to-point or just a design requirement.

For instance, per your requirement, you want some spokes to have the same IP subnet as the hub, well - then you configure a multipoint subinterface.

Later on, you want some spokes to have a different subnet, then you configure a point-to-point subinterface along with the multipoint.

That's the flexibility from having that option as opposed of having point-to-point as the only subinterface type available in frame-relay.

HTH,

__

Edison.

4 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Bronze

Re: Frame Relay Physical int versus Multipoint interface ?

You can have a multipoint interface for some spokes and a point-to-point interface for other spokes, if needs be.

HTH,

__

Edison.

New Member

Re: Frame Relay Physical int versus Multipoint interface ?

Hi ediortiz,

Are you talking here about one physical interface being split such that s0.1 could be multipoint and s0.2 could be point-to-point as a migration from multipoint to point-to-point ?

Regards,

Phil.

Hall of Fame Super Bronze

Re: Frame Relay Physical int versus Multipoint interface ?

It could be a migration to point-to-point or just a design requirement.

For instance, per your requirement, you want some spokes to have the same IP subnet as the hub, well - then you configure a multipoint subinterface.

Later on, you want some spokes to have a different subnet, then you configure a point-to-point subinterface along with the multipoint.

That's the flexibility from having that option as opposed of having point-to-point as the only subinterface type available in frame-relay.

HTH,

__

Edison.

Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: Frame Relay Physical int versus Multipoint interface ?

Phil

As far as a lab is concerned I am not sure that you are missing much of anything and both implementations are quite similar. In a live network I might prefer to use the multilink subinterface because it potentially makes things a bit more predictable. Since you have to assign the PVCs/DLCIs to the subinterface you know exactly what is there. If the provider should happen to provision another PVC/DLCI on the connection (perhaps by mistake) Cisco will assign that DLCI to the physical interface. If your multipoint implementation is on the physical interface then there is potential disruption in your network because of the new active connection. If your implementation is on the subinterface then there is no impact.

HTH

Rick

270
Views
5
Helpful
4
Replies
CreatePlease to create content