You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I cannot configure the vlan-priority for control plane traffic on a10-interfaces. So
control plane packets get dropped in QoS tests (that's problem with ppp/lcp)
cannot verify if control plane packets are handled properly by the DUTs QoS configuration.
Describe the solution you'd like
A configuration to set the vlan priority for control plan traffic on a10-interfaces.
Describe alternatives you've considered
I can't think of any alternative without putting some hardware inbetween to do the marking for me.
Additional context
A similar feature exists already for the client side. There it is possible to configure priority marking for pppoe/dhcp/dhcpv6. Since the A10 is used in a Layer2 context, I think it would be enough to have a single configuration for vlan-priority for all control plane packets. Dedicated configuration for each protocol type is imho not necessary, though nice to have.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I cannot configure the vlan-priority for control plane traffic on a10-interfaces. So
Describe the solution you'd like
A configuration to set the vlan priority for control plan traffic on a10-interfaces.
Describe alternatives you've considered
I can't think of any alternative without putting some hardware inbetween to do the marking for me.
Additional context
A similar feature exists already for the client side. There it is possible to configure priority marking for pppoe/dhcp/dhcpv6. Since the A10 is used in a Layer2 context, I think it would be enough to have a single configuration for vlan-priority for all control plane packets. Dedicated configuration for each protocol type is imho not necessary, though nice to have.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: