Re: [j-nsp] vpls question
On 27 Apr 2015, at 5:57 pm, james list jameslis...@gmail.commailto:jameslis...@gmail.com wrote: Well indeed OSPF is running also with customer peer in the other side of the MPLS cloud (CE2) and PE3/4 (still other side)... and it's due by customer requested design to have VPLS and OSPF on the PEs... So I understand that putting protocols vpls connectivity-type irb do not solve... I'm wondering why and the expected behaviour... If you have a VPLS with two PEs joining to one CE at each site, you've created two loops, one at each site. Standard behaviour is to define both PEs as a single site in the VPLS and use multi-homing and site-preference to keep one PE-CE interface inactive until such time as the other is required as already mentioned. You can't run OSPF across both links without bringing them both up, which will create an L2 loop - these things are mutually exclusive. The protocols vpls connectivity-type irb will keep the instance up if you have irbs defined and the PE-CE link goes down, but this doesn't really help you though. It might be time to break out the sock puppets and have a robust discussion with your customer. cheers James 2015-04-27 0:36 GMT+02:00 Ben Dale bd...@comlinx.com.aumailto:bd...@comlinx.com.au: Hi James, On 27 Apr 2015, at 5:31 am, james list jameslis...@gmail.commailto:jameslis...@gmail.com wrote: Hi amarjeet Because if PE1 fails there is faster convergence to PE2 due to neighbor already established. Is there a reason you wouldn't consider using an L3VPN instead of a VPLS? It seems odd to me that you would be using L3 adjacencies to an L2 service. If it really is L2 fail-over you are chasing, then Amarjeet is correct - multihoming and site-preference are designed for exactly this purpose. If you customer requires L3 connectivity across your VPLS, you would be better off carrying their OSPF across the VPLS and let their CEs form adjacencies with each other - that way, you can take care of L2 fail-over, and the customer is responsible for L3. Cheers, Ben Cheers James Il 24/apr/2015 13:23, james list jameslis...@gmail.commailto:jameslis...@gmail.com ha scritto: 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 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.netmailto: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
Re: [j-nsp] vpls question
Well indeed OSPF is running also with customer peer in the other side of the MPLS cloud (CE2) and PE3/4 (still other side)... and it's due by customer requested design to have VPLS and OSPF on the PEs... So I understand that putting protocols vpls connectivity-type irb do not solve... I'm wondering why and the expected behaviour... cheers James 2015-04-27 0:36 GMT+02:00 Ben Dale bd...@comlinx.com.au: Hi James, On 27 Apr 2015, at 5:31 am, james list jameslis...@gmail.com wrote: Hi amarjeet Because if PE1 fails there is faster convergence to PE2 due to neighbor already established. Is there a reason you wouldn't consider using an L3VPN instead of a VPLS? It seems odd to me that you would be using L3 adjacencies to an L2 service. If it really is L2 fail-over you are chasing, then Amarjeet is correct - multihoming and site-preference are designed for exactly this purpose. If you customer requires L3 connectivity across your VPLS, you would be better off carrying their OSPF across the VPLS and let their CEs form adjacencies with each other - that way, you can take care of L2 fail-over, and the customer is responsible for L3. Cheers, Ben Cheers James Il 24/apr/2015 13:23, james list jameslis...@gmail.com ha scritto: 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 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] vpls question
Hi James, On 27 Apr 2015, at 5:31 am, james list jameslis...@gmail.com wrote: Hi amarjeet Because if PE1 fails there is faster convergence to PE2 due to neighbor already established. Is there a reason you wouldn't consider using an L3VPN instead of a VPLS? It seems odd to me that you would be using L3 adjacencies to an L2 service. If it really is L2 fail-over you are chasing, then Amarjeet is correct - multihoming and site-preference are designed for exactly this purpose. If you customer requires L3 connectivity across your VPLS, you would be better off carrying their OSPF across the VPLS and let their CEs form adjacencies with each other - that way, you can take care of L2 fail-over, and the customer is responsible for L3. Cheers, Ben Cheers James Il 24/apr/2015 13:23, james list jameslis...@gmail.com ha scritto: 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 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] vpls question
Hi amarjeet Because if PE1 fails there is faster convergence to PE2 due to neighbor already established. Cheers James Il 24/apr/2015 13:23, james list jameslis...@gmail.com ha scritto: 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 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
Re: [j-nsp] vpls question
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 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
[j-nsp] vpls question
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 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
Re: [j-nsp] VPLS question
Hi chris
Could you pls send me a concrete config example of your last statement:
- You can put a VPLS into an L3VPN by defining a routing-interface irb.xx
into the VPLS (VPLS then requies vlan tagging i.e. vlan-id defined in the
VPLS)
then including the same irb.xxx interface in the L3VPN interfaces list.
You can put multiple VPLSs in this way (1 irb.xx per VPLS, and multiple
irb.xx in the L3VPN)
Thanks
something like:
interfaces {
irb {
unit 100 {
family inet {
address 1.1.1.0/24;
}
}
unit 200 {
family inet {
address 2.2.2.0/24;
}
}
}
}
}
routing-instances {
VPLS1 {
instance-type vpls;
vlan-id 100;
routing-interface irb.100;
interface ge-0/0/0.100;
vrf-target target:65535:1;
protocols {
vpls {
no-tunnel-services;
site X {
site-identifier 1;
}
}
}
VPLS2 {
instance-type vpls;
vlan-id 200;
routing-interface irb.200;
interface ge-0/0/0.200;
vrf-target target:65535:2;
protocols {
vpls {
no-tunnel-services;
site Y {
site-identifier 1;
}
}
}
L3VPN {
instance-type vrf;
interface irb.100; // VPLS 1
interface irb.200; // VPLS 2
vrf-target target:65535:3;
vrf-table-label;
}
}
cc'ed to list to share the knowledge.
- CK.
On 12/03/2015, at 11:29 PM, james list jameslis...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 11/mar/2015 23:09 Chris Kawchuk juniperd...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Yes.
- L2CKTs can be mapped into a VPLS using an LDP Mesh Group [routing-instances
protocols vpls mesh-group vpls-id neighbour ]
- L2VPNs can be mapped into a VPLS using stitched lt-* interfaces (interfaces
lt-1/0/10.1 lt-1/0/10.2 peer unit 1 etc.. encapsulation vlan-vpls /
vlan-ccc)
- You can put a VPLS into an L3VPN by defining a routing-interface irb.xx
into the VPLS (VPLS then requies vlan tagging i.e. vlan-id defined in the
VPLS)
then including the same irb.xxx interface in the L3VPN interfaces list.
You can put multiple VPLSs in this way (1 irb.xx per VPLS, and multiple
irb.xx in the L3VPN)
- CK.
On 12/03/2015, at 1:43 AM, james list jameslis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks
It there a way, in a vpls configuration with MX, to map multiple L2 and
multiple L3 in the same vpls instance ?
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] VPLS question
Hi folks It there a way, in a vpls configuration with MX, to map multiple L2 and multiple L3 in the same vpls instance ? If yes, pls paste an example… Cheers James ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] VPLS question
Yes. - L2CKTs can be mapped into a VPLS using an LDP Mesh Group [routing-instances protocols vpls mesh-group vpls-id neighbour ] - L2VPNs can be mapped into a VPLS using stitched lt-* interfaces (interfaces lt-1/0/10.1 lt-1/0/10.2 peer unit 1 etc.. encapsulation vlan-vpls / vlan-ccc) - You can put a VPLS into an L3VPN by defining a routing-interface irb.xx into the VPLS (VPLS then requies vlan tagging i.e. vlan-id defined in the VPLS) then including the same irb.xxx interface in the L3VPN interfaces list. You can put multiple VPLSs in this way (1 irb.xx per VPLS, and multiple irb.xx in the L3VPN) - CK. On 12/03/2015, at 1:43 AM, james list jameslis...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks It there a way, in a vpls configuration with MX, to map multiple L2 and multiple L3 in the same vpls instance ? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
