Do we support QinQ?

[Venn]

TK, if the BR1 is used as WAN inside the Layer2 VPN, it shouldn’t impact? The Frame is anyway split by Speedfusion.

Anyway, the 310X supports it so I’m . This device is my new favourite!

[james.webster1]

@Venn

The BR1 would be one among other WANs and considered as an ISP line on the Balance so I guess it doesn’t count here. It is inside the WAN part of [LAN] Balance [WAN MTU1500]
I understand from your answer that FusionHub doesn’t support it which is strange.

I believe you are right in this instance as the br1 will not see the Q-in-Q packet as it will be encapsulated in pepvpn/SF and will be fragmented by the balance device.

[james.webster1]

I believe you are right in this instance as the br1 will not see the Q-in-Q packet as it will be encapsulated in pepvpn/SF and will be fragmented by the balance device.

[TK_Liew]

@Venn

TK, if the BR1 is used as WAN inside the Layer2 VPN, it shouldn’t impact? The Frame is anyway split by Speedfusion.

Anyway, the 310X supports it so I’m . This device is my new favourite!

That will be fine.

[Venn]

TK,

re-reading other posts on the forum like this one, Speedfusion MTU 1600 for SRM VMWare - #3 by Travis , I believe all WANs must have jumbo frame support even if the traffic is encapsulated in Speedfusion.

I can’t use MBX with 4x 1500 MTU cellular connections ina SF tunnel to transport jumbo frames.

@Travis can you confirm this?

[Venn]

As a few forum users are following this post, it has been confirmed to me in dm that it is possible (All praise the SpeedFusion ) !

Also, don’t look on current MBX/310X firmware, Jumbo frame option is not there, it will come in the new release.