cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
5395
Views
10
Helpful
5
Replies

EPG-to-aep vs. static path binding

abourges
Level 1
Level 1

Hi,

 

we're about to deploy ACI at a customer and our design currently makes use of EPG-through-AEP deployment. We see several advantages using this approach, one of which is that the customer is currently making use of nexus-based port-profiles in his datacenter, which we can simulate using a dedicated aaep that corresponds to a single port-profile. Adding/removing EPGs from the AAEP would correspond to add/remove vans from the corresponding port-profile.

 

Customer is having a lot of servers which are currently configured by using port-profiles, where the vlans allowed on the trunk interfaces are configured in the port-profile. Since there is quite some movement in the assigned vlans, it is very handy to just modify the port-profile (instead of every single trunk-port...).

 

At another customer we spoke to the BU about using EGP-through-AEP deployment and it was fine for the BU to go that way...

 

 

However, one of my colleagues recently got feedback from cisco advanced services and they strongly disagreed to making use of epg-through-aep deployment. Unfortunately, we didn't get more feedback, since this was a different customer...

 

However, if you google-around you find quite some blogs/posts (even here in the cisco community) that strongly recommend to use static-path-binding instead of epg-through-aep, however, it's almost all the time without strong arguments, most of the time "it's not best practices" is mentioned ?!

 

So is there anybody that could explain what the problem with this approach could be, or are there any bad experiences?

 

Thanks for any reply and best regards,

 

Andreas

5 Replies 5

julian.bendix
Level 3
Level 3