On 2010-07-22, at 3:03 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > you can't do the mpls ping to validate? (ping mpls l2vpn ...)
Wouldn't I need an attachment circuit in order for the l2vpn to come up, or are you saying that a successful ping mpls l2vpn is independent of the state of the attachment circuit? > you could also hook two ports on the same J box together and put the IP on > one and EoMPLS on the other... I hadn't considered that, but good to know for next time when I have a box with a few spare ports. > (Cisco: > > Router#ping mpls pseudowire 10.0.0.1 115 > Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos to 10.0.0.1, > timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec: > > Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout, > 'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface, > 'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch, > 'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no label entry, > 'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP, > 'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index, > 'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > !!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/363/460 ms ) > > - Jared > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > >> I'm trying to test some C to J EoMPLS interoperability, but the only J box >> that I have doesn't have any free interfaces on it, so I have nowhere to >> connect a test CE and use the CE to ping the far end. Is there any way to >> stick a subnet on to an l2circuit directly instead of having to use a >> physical interface and a physical CE? >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp