CISCO ASR901 BRIDGE BETWEEN 2 INTERFACES WITH XCONNECT

[gfreitasf]

Hi All!

  I'm looking for some way to make a transparent bridge between two interfaces of a Cisco router ASR901 , is there any possibility? I ask this because I have a scenario where I would use the ASR901 to the following question :

POP01 (                            )  ASR901  g0 / 6 -------- > ISG_7206

POP02 ( MPLS CLOUD )                   g0 / 7 -------- > ISG_7206

POP03 (                            )

The ASR901 will focus EoMPLS with other points in the network and pass on to ISG routers , ie , VLANs would have to be two ports with XConnect to a remote router , the configuration would be something like this :

interface GigabitEthernet0/6

Core description : MPLS CONC PPPOE02

no ip address

negotiation auto

hold- queue 1024 in

hold- queue 1024 in October

!

service instance 4095 ethernet

  encapsulation dot1q 4094

  rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric

interface GigabitEthernet0/7

Core description : 7206_PPPOE_01

no ip address

negotiation auto

!

service instance 4095 ethernet

  encapsulation dot1q 4094

  rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric

!

end

L2VPN XConnect context TEST

ethernet interworking

member 201.55.127.202 1212 encapsulation mpls group TEST

member GigabitEthernet0 / 7 service -instance TEST 4095 group priority 1

member GigabitEthernet0 / 6 service -instance 4095

redundancy group delay 1 3 TEST

But without an interface that was redundant of other , what I need is the 2 interfaces in " bridge " making a XConnect to a remote router , and these 2 interfaces connected ISGs in 2 to make a balance .

[jason_maki]

Hello,

I do not believe that the ASR901 will do this without help from an upstream device. If I understand correctly, you want to build a bridge-domain with 3 EFPs: 2 physical ports, and one pseudowire. As of the last IOS revision that I have configured on this platform, the 901 doesn't support the pseudowire on a bridge-domain, only a service instance.

It seems to me that you would need an upstream box involved to support this.

Either:

Build 2 pseudowires to an upstream box that supports this configuration (like an ME 3600x, ME3800x, or 9k).

or

Associate both service instances to a common bridge domain that is extended to an upstream box that is initiating the pseudowire. More platforms would support this, since it does not require supporting the pseudowire on a bridge domain.

...Unless you are looking to build an LACP channel-group on the interfaces connected to the ISGs to load-balance. The 901 supports LACP, and it also supports building an EFP (service instance) on the channel-group interface. This technically makes the 2 physical interfaces one EFP. The part of this that I have not tried is building a pseudowire on an EFP on a channel-group.

Hope this helps.

Jason