<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic RE: Pureview with Q-in-Q in Network Architecture &amp; Design</title>
    <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13160#M564</link>
    <description>Bumping this question, so we can hopefully receive an answer from Tyler Marcotte or someone with similar knowledge?</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Ben_Parker</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-01-05T22:04:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Pureview with Q-in-Q</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13159#M563</link>
      <description>We are looking at deploying Pureview at an ISP.&lt;BR /&gt;
They would like to Analyse the client traffic in a Q-in-Q tunnel with Pureview. Can the Coreflow 2, S series switch analyse traffic in a Q-in-Q tunnel&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13159#M563</guid>
      <dc:creator>Andre_Brits_Kan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-23T14:52:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: Pureview with Q-in-Q</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13160#M564</link>
      <description>Bumping this question, so we can hopefully receive an answer from Tyler Marcotte or someone with similar knowledge?</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13160#M564</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ben_Parker</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-01-05T22:04:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: Pureview with Q-in-Q</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13161#M565</link>
      <description>I don't believe it will given the purview mirror to the appliance would still have the S-Tag in the header. I will check with the NMS group and confirm..</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13161#M565</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bill_Stritzinge</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-01-05T22:35:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: Pureview with Q-in-Q</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13162#M566</link>
      <description>Like I expected, purview does not account for the Q-in-Q and therefore the mirror would still have the S or C tag on the packet.  So the answer is no it cannot do it today.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 05:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/pureview-with-q-in-q/m-p/13162#M566</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bill_Stritzinge</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-01-08T05:19:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

