cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
242
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies
Highlighted

ASR1000 DLCI-to-DLCI L2VPN using protocol based CLI - WRONG DOCUMENTATION

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?

2 REPLIES 2
Highlighted
Advisor

Do you have to use MPLS?

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

Highlighted

Hello Phillip,

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

CreatePlease to create content
Content for Community-Ad

Cisco COVID-19 Survey

This widget could not be displayed.