Hey Evgeny... Yes, worked great. The key was to include "connectivity-type irb" which was missing originally...
paul@xxxxxxxxx> show configuration routing-instances xxxxxxx_IP_Transit instance-type vpls; vlan-id 100; routing-interface irb.100; route-distinguisher xx.xx.xxx:100; vrf-target target:xxxxx:9100; protocols { vpls { site-range 20; no-tunnel-services; site Core { site-identifier 2; } connectivity-type irb; } } Traffic wise, this customer does up to 400Mb/s No LT interfaces involved as end up doing it inside a VPLS instance via IRB interface :) Paul On 2013-09-17 11:24 AM, "Terebizh, Evgeny" <etereb...@amt.ru> wrote: >Hi Paul, >Just curious. >Does it seem to work well? >What is the maximum amount of traffic going through the lt interface? >Aren't you facing any limits upon that? > >Thanks, >/Evgeny > >________________________________________ >From: juniper-nsp [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf of Paul >Stewart [p...@paulstewart.org] >Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:05 AM >To: Krasimir Avramski >Cc: Juniper-Nsp >Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination > >Just wanted to say thanks - that worked great and it's now rolled into >production with the customer.... > >Paul > > >From: Krasimir Avramski <kr...@smartcom.bg> >Date: Tuesday, 30 July, 2013 2:08 AM >To: Paul Stewart <p...@paulstewart.org> >Cc: Juniper-Nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> >Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination > >> Hi, >> >> On the core instance: set routing-instances xyz_IP_Transit protocols >>vpls >> connectivity-type irb >> >> Krasi >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Paul Stewart <p...@paulstewart.org> >>wrote: >>> Thanks folksÅ >>> >>> I have an issue with implementing this and was hoping for a "sanity >>> check". ;) >>> >>> On the "core" side of this implementation I am not taking the VPLS >>> instance to any form of a physical interface - I only have an IRB >>> interface and the VPLS path will not come up. I'm assuming the VPLS >>>path >>> won't establish because of lack of a physical interface or is it just >>> something else that I've misconfigured? >>> >>> Core Router (MX480): >>> >>> paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> show configuration routing-instances >>> xyz_IP_Transit { >>> instance-type vpls; >>> vlan-id 100; >>> routing-interface irb.100; >>> route-distinguisher xx.xx.xx.xx:100; >>> vrf-target target:11666:9100; >>> protocols { >>> vpls { >>> site-range 20; >>> no-tunnel-services; >>> site Core { >>> site-identifier 2; >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> CPE Facing Router (MX80): >>> >>> >>> paul@dis1.peterborough4> show configuration routing-instances >>> xyz_IP_Transit { >>> instance-type vpls; >>> vlan-id 100; >>> interface ge-1/1/0.100; >>> route-distinguisher xx.xx.xx.xx:100; >>> vrf-target target:11666:9100; >>> protocols { >>> vpls { >>> site-range 20; >>> no-tunnel-services; >>> site customer { >>> site-identifier 1; >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On 2013-07-26 2:08 PM, "Tarko Tikan" <ta...@lanparty.ee> wrote: >>> >>>> >hey, >>>> > >>>>> >> 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/configurat >>>>>io >>>>> >> n/vpls-irb-solutions.html >>>> > >>>> >+1 for this. Not a hack, we have been using this for a while now and >>>>got >>>> >all major bugs fixed over time. In production for hundreds of >>>>thousands >>>> >of customers. >>>> > >>>> >Don't use lt- interfaces if you don't have to. >>>> > >>>>> >> 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. >>>> > >>>> >+1 for this as well. This will supposedly support all the features >>>> >physical ports do so you can do HQoS etc. >>>> > >>>> >-- >>>> >tarko >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> >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 >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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