01-18-2017 12:48 AM
Good day networkers,
Referring to this document: http://goo.gl/6w8Ro7, below is the way to configure DLCI to DLCI L2VPN:
configure terminal
frame-relay switching
interface serial slot / subslot / port [. subinterface]
encapsulation frame-relay [cisco | ietf]
frame-relay intf-type dce
exit
connect connection-name interface dlci l2transport
end
interface pseudowire number
encapsulation mpls
neighbor 10.0.0.1 123
exit
l2vpn xconnect context context-name
member pseudowire interface-number
member 10.0.0.1 123 encapsulation mpls
The problem is, the peer IP address and the VCID defined on both of the "psedowire interface" and the "l2vpn xconnect context" are the same, this makes the router refuses the configuration telling the following:
interface pseudowire123
encapsulation mpls
neighbor 10.0.0.1 123
end
router(config-xconnect)#member 10.0.0.1 123 encapsulation mpls
% Xconnect PW member is configured with a specified interface
And more importantly, this configuration lacks the link/connection between the local circuit and the neighbor.
Is it a wrong documentation from Cisco?
01-18-2017 12:17 PM
Do you have to use MPLS? Could you use the older style, like this?
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/l2tpv325.html#wp1051303
01-22-2017 01:17 AM
Hello Phillip,
Yes, I have to use MPLS because this is a PE router, however I am interested to know if you have another way to implement FAT PW.
The problem is I am trying to implement FAT pseudowire, and this old style doesn't support FAT PW.
Thanks,
MP
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