I have this config in a Cat6500:
l2 vfi XXX manual
vpn id XXX
interface vlan XXX
ip addrr 184.108.40.206
xconnect vfi XXX
With this config I can't reach from 6500 other equipments on this vlan with vpls.
It is ok to setup an ip address in a VLAN interface even if the interface have VPLS "xconnect" configuration?
No, IP address and VPLS configuration cannot co-exist.
ANyone here who can correct me in case I am missing something?
To my knowledge following Switchport interfaces are suported:
sultan is correct you cannot use IP address and Xconnect command on the same interface. I done it and TAC freaked out that you could actually do it - so its defo not supported and you will find if you upgrade your device it will not let you do it again ;-)
I would like to put my idea only but i do't know if it is correct or not.
but if we defice any ip address on the interface than this will help us to improve anything but will appear in the routing table of PE router and it could be a part of it's routing and MPLS which is not required.
secondly we are trying to emulate layer2 briedge accross the VPLS backbone not the Layer 3 switch domain. than it could be possible that you configure routing accross the backbone but there is no such kind of mechanism to enable routing.
please rate if it helps.
There is one more thing that I would like to add here, you CAN have MP2MP connectivity without L2 bridging with RFC 2547 bis implementation.
Is our understanding correct or you meant something else when you said that routing is not possible in a L3 based VPLS "like" domain
We both have same concept. i agree to have 2547 RFC compatible L3 VPN it works in VPLS but the requirement is to have xconnect with ip address which is not possible.
either use L2 vpls or use L3 vpls.
I got you. But when I configure an ip address in an interface vlan with xconnect VPLS, I can ping and use for about 3 minutes, and after this I can't ping anymore.
IT WORKS, but, for just a few minutes..