Saku, Mark is correct, l2circuits are end-to-end services where uptime is based at the termination points, Inside the backbone, every l2circuits works under LSP with FRR, so... from on point to another, LSP can search the best route, put in place a second best route(standby), how many routes you want...
If we experience some degraded fiber/service, checking the LSP, we know where to look. And after disabling that segment of network, all problem solved. Tshoot time decreased to few minutes only, and this makes everyone happy. VPLS is very good when you use one port per customer, 1/10Gb, when you have to set trunk ports of 10Gb and put lots of vlan in a VC of 5to10 QFX switches, things gone wild... one error, a l2 loop will shut every customer inside that distribution POD. Think that layer2 still inside the vpls instance inside the MX routers and drop down to the VC. You can loop easily, yes, here, ops team did l2 loop two times in one year, dropping more than 500 customers. With a big impact.... after the second, the order was to move to L2circuits, Mac learning and so one still resides at cpe equipment, and the core still clean. I’m just sharing my operational experience and fears, quality of services offered... we provide last mile connect from carriers like Verizon, Orange, Algar, British Telecom and so on... so quality of service and availability is the rule of the business. Also we provide l2circuits of 10/40/100Gbps for ISP over here. So, quality and uptime is the focus. ELS cli bring me some problem with QinQ L2TP services since it doesn’t works, also with the RTG, doesn’t work to, cause that I still using ex2200, ex3300. About those Aristas, I don’t have notice if some one use them as a P router or if they have xconnect/l2circuits services, even local Arista dealer knows.... we have some Aristas working only with layer2/3 for colocation services inside our datacenters facilities. att Alexandre Em 7 de jul de 2018, à(s) 09:38, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu<mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>> escreveu: On 7/Jul/18 14:16, Saku Ytti wrote: I feel your frustration, but to me it feels like there is very little sharable knowledge in your experience. Hmmh, I thought there was a fair bit, explicit and inferred. I feel Alexandre could have gone on more than his TL;DR post allowed for :-). You seem to compare full-blown VPLS, with virtual switch and MAC learning to single LDD martini. You also seem to blame BGP pseudowires for BGP transport flapping, clearly you'd have equally bad time if LDP transport flaps, but at least in BGP's case you can have redundancy via multiple RR connections, with LDP you're reliant on the single session. Sounded like BGP flaps was one of several problems Alexandre described, including an unruly BGP routing table, et al. Not sure how relevant RR redundancy is per your argument, as ultimately, a single customer needing an end-to-end pw is mostly relying on the uptime of the PE devices at each end of their circuit, and liveliness of the core. If those pw's are linked by an LDP thread, what would a 2nd LDP-based pw (if that were sensibly possible) bring to the table? I'm not dissing BGP-based pw signaling in any way or form, but for that, you'd need "Router + IGP + BGP + RR + RR" to be fine. With LDP-based signaling for just this one customer, you only need "Router + IGP + LDP" to be fine. Personally, I've never deployed VPLS, nor had the appetite for it. It just seemed like a handful on paper the moment it was first published, not to mention the war stories around it from the brave souls that deployed it when VPLS was the buzzword then that SDN is these days. It certainly made the case for EVPN, which I still steer clear from until I find a requirement that can't be solved any other way. Again, no dis to anyone running VPLS; just much respect to you for all your nerve :-). Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
