On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Wojciech Janiszewski wrote:
You have effectively created L2 loop over EVPN, so to cut it you need a link between bridged network and EVPN to be a single link. There is no STP in EVPN. If you need two physical connections to between those networks, then LAG is a way to go. MC-LAG or virtual chassis can be configured on legacy switches to maintain that connection. ESI will handle that on EVPN side.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
As per RFC, bridges must appear to EVPN PEs as a LAG. In essence, you need to configure MC-LAG (facing EVPN PEs) on the switches facing EVPN PEs, if you have multiple switches facing EVPN-PEs. Switches doesn’t need to be from Juniper, so MC-LAG on the switches doesn’t need to be Juniper-flavored. If you have single switch facing EVPN PEs -> simple LAG (with members towards different EVPN PEs) on that single switch is OK.
Got it. Insufficiently careful reading of the RFC vs. Juniper example documentation. I really ought to know better by now...
Unfortunately, doing MC-LAG of any flavor toward the PEs from some of these switches is easier said than done. Assuming incredibly dumb layer 2 only, and re-reading RFC 7432 8.5 more carefully this time... Is single-active a viable option here? If so, is there any support on the MX for what the RFC is calling service carving for VLAN-aware bundles for basic load balancing between the PEs?
Thanks for setting me straight! -Rob _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
