Hello James - If you are using BGP as signalling protocol and already have "multihoming" & "site-preference" knobs configured for both PE's (PE1, PE2) then you are pretty much done to prevent loops.
Could you advise the reason why you want to run OSPF b/w Provider routers (PE1, PE2) and Router behind CE in L2 services scenario? Br, Amarjeet > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:23:19 +0200 > From: james list <jameslis...@gmail.com> > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] vpls question > Message-ID: > < > caecmol4lexkydy-vyr-haqwbu8ffyli6nhnpc2o+c5sgevd...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I have a VPLS multi-homed environment with two MX routers (PE1 and PE2) > connected to a single ethernet switch (CE1). I have PE1 configured with > site-preference as "primary" and PE2 as "backup". > > > Behind the CE1 there is a router running OSPF with both MX (on irb > interface). > > > My goal is to have: > > 1) Multihoming to prevent loops > > 2) Let the router run two OSPF neighbor with both PE and not just one > with the primary PE. > > I?m wondering if using: > > > set routing-instances XXXX protocols vpls connectivity-type irb > > > instead of the default (connectivity-type ce) could give me the option to > reach my goal number 2) and if I can introduce any drawback. > > > Or if there is another solution keeping 1). > > > I don?t have a lab to test? > > > Any help/feedback is really appreciated. > > > Greetings > > James > > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp