My first QnQ

[ulink]

Doing a circuit upgrade with my upstream and they are providing a VLAN to me that links a couple locations. At the core is my block 0' publics that I tie to a VLAN and send to my customers. At one location, I am using Mikrotik to do the QnQ tagging and removal but at this second location, I want to remove the tik's and use my wispswitch to do the QnQ. Here is the setup I am testing at present. Very straight forward. Testing today at the new circuit, I was not getting the results I expected so though I would verify my setup here.
Is this legit on the switch and I need to be reviewing other points in the connection for my problem? Thanks for your time.

[mike99]

Q will encasulate everything so the're should not be any tagged VLAN on port 2, it's a UNI port. Never tryed if tagged VLAN would make a exception to the encapsulation but anyway, the UNI port should ecapsulate everything and face the customer device. If the customer is behing a PTP wireless link, you should add a netonix, or any other device supporting QinQ, as a CPE to uncapsulate customer traffic.

Once the customer traffic encapsulate into VLAN 410, the're should be a uplink port going to the Mikrotik with a tagged with 410.

[ulink]

Thanks for reply Mark99
This switch will take the PtP on port 2 and distribute 198 to AP's on other ports. So your saying, no tagging of 198 on port 2. Q only and it will peel off 410. Whats a 'UNI' port?

[mike99]

Sorry but I don't really understand what your trying to do. Why do you want to use QinQ ?

A UNI (user network interface) port is a port facing customer in carrier ethernet.

[ulink]

Yes. Have to use QnQ. Wanting to wrap 198 in 410 for delivery over my upstreams network to my core in the data center. Suppose my inquiry should be restated to, How does one implement QnQ on wispswitches?
Ports 3,4,5 are my UNI ports (thanks for acronym clarification). 2 is the trunk port that needs to include the 410 and 198 tags for delivery to the core router.
What I need the switch to do is remove the 410 at the trunk (port 2) allowing for 198 to be sent to customer CPE. Hence, the tagging of 198 on port 2 with 410 as 'Q'.

[mike99]

Netonix implementation don't work this way, the encasulation is configure to be done on customer UNI port, not on uplink port.

What you could do is remove the encasulation on remote switch connected to port 2. If you put a Q on the port 2, the switch will add a second VLAN 410 encasulation instead of removing it. What you want is the reverse of what Q do, remove the encasulation on ingress and add it on egress. You should ask Eric if anything can be done about it, add other options like "reverse Q" and "reverse D" but don't explect those soon since Netonix team seem busy on new switch with 10 Gbps uplink port.

For now, best option would be to do in on the switch connected to port 2 instead of on port 2.

[ulink]

Makes Sense Mike99
Thanks for the explanation. I am simply adding/pulling the 410 at the mikrotik for now. It will suffice.