cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
398
Views
20
Helpful
22
Replies

Sub-Interface and SVI in C9500

Psmurali89
Beginner
Beginner

Hi All

I got C9500 in stackwise virtual (2 switches in stack). Am looking to configure sub-interface (for eg, twe1/0/1.340 on VRF A) in one of the physical port that connects to ISP and SVI (for eg, vlan891 on VRF A) for other internal VLAN and configure as trunk in another port. Is this possible to have SVI and sub-interface on same switch? 

22 Replies 22

balaji.bandi
VIP Community Legend VIP Community Legend
VIP Community Legend

as per the information i do not see any issue, where do you see any limitation?

other than mentioned below :

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9500/software/release/16-12/configuration_guide/vlan/b_1612_vlan_9500_cg/configuring_layer_3_subinterfaces.pdf

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

Thank you. Just read through the link and I don't think there is any limitation on that switch. Also the switch model I got supports sub-interface. 

Sure plan as per the requirement 1 step at a time if you looking to on live device.

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

MHM Cisco World
Advisor
Advisor

there is no limit I think 
the switchport first must be convert to L3 port then config subinterface. 
the only point you must care about is the VRF 
you must config ISP and SVI to be in same VRF 
or config different VRF and then you need leak route between VRF.

yes so if i have sub interface on port 1 (for eg, twe1/0/1.340 on VRF Test) and an SVI (for eg, VLAN891 on VRF Test) which will be attached to another port as trunk (for eg, in port Twe1/0/2 as trunk port which goes to another L2 switch where firewall is connected). 

meaning your ISP link and SVI in same VRF that great, there is no problem with this config. 

Note:- keep notice when you config ISP with specific VRF then any new SVI you want to forward it traffic through ISP must be in same VRF. 

Deepak Kumar
Advocate
Advocate

Hello,

Your question is not much clear to me but No, it is not possible to mix Layer 2 and Layer 3 interfaces as subinterfaces. Also 

Subinterfaces are not supported on StackWise Virtual Link (SVL) 

Here is a solution

Create multiple VLANs as required and also create a VRF for the ISP. Put SVI in the VRF. 

Now, you can create the trunk port and assign all required VLANs to the trunk port. 

Regards,
Deepak Kumar,
Don't forget to vote and accept the solution if this comment will help you!

Hi, 

No, I mean sub interface on port 1 (for eg, twe1/0/1.340 on VRF A) and an SVI (for eg, VLAN891 on VRF A) which will be attached to another port as trunk (for eg, in port Twe1/0/2 as trunk port which goes to another L2 switch where firewall is connected). 

Will it work as above? 

Subinterfaces are not supported on StackWise Virtual Link (SVL) 

so option 1 is gone (sub interface on port 1 (for eg, twe1/0/1.340 on VRF A) )

2nd is possible (another port as trunk (for eg, in port Twe1/0/2 as trunk port which goes to another L2 switch where firewall is connected). 

https://content.cisco.com/chapter.sjs?uri=/searchable/chapter/content/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9500/software/release/16-10/configuration_guide/vlan/b_1610_vlan_9500_cg/configuring_layer_3_subinterfaces.html.xml

 

Regards,
Deepak Kumar,
Don't forget to vote and accept the solution if this comment will help you!

Think there is some misunderstanding, I didnt mean to sub interface the stackwise virtual?

I meant to sub-interface the port that connects to ISP which is port1.. The stackwise virtual is on different port(s).  

The config looks like below:

!

interface twe1/0/1.340

description Link to ISP

vrf forwarding TEST

ip add 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0

!

Interface vlan340

desc Link to Firewall

vrf forwarding TEST

ip add 192.168.255.1 255.255.255.0

!

interface twe1/0/2

Desc link to L2 switch

switchport mode trunk

switchport trunk allowed vlan 340

!

interface twe1/0/23

desc stackwise virtual

!

what is the use case here for the port connected to ISP required another sub interface ? why ?

we generally do sub interface required, where other side trunk ..required more vlan required to pass.

if the ISP support trunk, why not make physical interface as trunk and allowed VLAN required in the trunk

create vlan x VRFX vlan y VRF Y so on - is that works ?

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

The only reason am looking to do is because the system MTU in the switch is 9000 (in middle of migration so cant change MTU to 1500 at this time due to dependency on other legacy switches) but the ISP MTU has to be set to 1500. If i configure as SVI then in every VLAN (nearly 50 VLAN that connects to ISP) i have to manually set the MTU to 1500.. If i configure as sub-interface then I can set the main port MTU to 1500 so all other sub-interfaces will be automatically on same MTU. 

Yes, it will work like this:

interface twe1/0/1.340
description Link to ISP
encapsulation dot1q 341 <<<<<=== different VLAN ID
vrf forwarding TEST
ip add 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0

Sub-interface ID is not an actual VLAN ID.  Encapsulation needs to define as VLAN but it can't be the same as other SVI. 

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9300/software/release/16-12/configuration_guide/vlan/b_1612_vlan_9300_cg/configuring_layer_3_subinterfaces.pdf

Regards,
Deepak Kumar,
Don't forget to vote and accept the solution if this comment will help you!
Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: