On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:23:16PM -0500, Aaron Gould wrote: > (I really should change this subject heading to "BGP VPLS - Multi-homing" > since that's the more specific vpls version we are discussing at this > point... FEC 128 / RFC 4761) > > hey look what I just found .. > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/usage-guidelines/vp > ns-configuring-vpls-multihoming.html > "When two PE routers use the same site ID, VPLS assumes multihoming behavior > by default." .so I guess that's why I'm seeing good multi-homing behavior > without configuring that command ".site multi-homing" > > But interestingly, they mention a few things with that multi-homing command. > they say it tracks bgp neighborship, but I don't know what they mean by > this. "such as to prevent isolation of the PE router from the core or split > brain." Not sure how that *prevents* isolation. If you lose bgp, aren't > you isolated ?! > > Also, I'm wondering what the scenario is that they mention in this statement > . "There are scenarios, however that require preventing of BGP peer > tracking, such as in a two-PE-router topology. In such cases, multihoming > should not be explicitly configured as it can break node redundancy." How > would config'ing "protocol vpls site test multi-homing" break node > redundancy ?
Well gee, I think you found my problem I reported here: https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/60351 I'm going to try removing the multi-homing statement to see if it fixes my issue. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp