Alternatively use routed VPLS on the core box if it is also an MX and a standard VPLS instance on the edge: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.2/topics/task/configuratio n/vpls-irb-solutions.html
Or if you are game then in the next release you should get "psX" interfaces on the MX for direct PWHT although it will still be bound to an lt- interface underneath. Documentation already exists for this for 13.1. Caillin -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 8:11 AM To: m...@kenweb.org; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination > > > >lt- interfaces are definitely a way to do it. In my case I put an lt- >interface in a VPLS instance that was paired to another lt- with >"family inet .." in a virtual router instance. I had a routed VPLS for >names sake. In my situation though the lt- interface doesn't move much >traffic. I'm unsure of what might happen if you tried to move real >traffic through it. I'll find out what 400 Mb/s or so of traffic looks like on Monday haha ;) Paul _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
