(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-vpl
Dear Aaron,
I can't relate for MX product-line and LSYS interactions.
Regarding SRX product-line and LSYS, it's mostly some functionnalities not
being handled well by the firewall at the LSYS level. In the end, I know it
forced my hosting colleagues to resort to some nasty workarounds that
became
Thanks Youssef, yes sir, you may advise me anytime :)
I currently use lsys in lab for testing and is a nice way of having lots of
separate routers in one MX104
We (my coworkers and I) have thought that when we rollout a new ring of
MX960's, that maybe it would be good to try to put the PE funct
Thanks Alexander. I was just now updating GNS3 for just that. I have used
GNS3 in the past for IOS, XRv, vMX, and olive. Do I need GNS3 or can I do
it only with VMware, etc as you've stated.
-Aaron
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.neth
Thanks James.
As a side note, seems incredible that bgp is actually used for advertising
mac address for a bridging function. Who would have ever known 20 years ago
that we would be here.
- Aaron
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nethe
-
Von: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von
James Bensley
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2017 09:20
An: juniper-nsp
Betreff: Re: [j-nsp] LDP VPLS - Multi-homing
On 10 October 2017 at 01:45, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Ah, I see what you are asking. I don't know,
On 10 October 2017 at 01:45, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Ah, I see what you are asking. I don't know, perhaps someone on list knows
> the particulars.
>
> About the multiple active fwd'ing paths for mhome'd pe-ce... I think someone
> told me that is a benefit that evpn brings to the table... but I heard
Hello Aaron,
If I may, I would advice you to drop LSYS for two reasons :
1/ on a practical level, it's more constraints and limitations than it sounds
on the paper. After 5 years of running it into production, we have phased it
out two weeks ago.
2/ it is dying and replacement feature (logical
Ah, I see what you are asking. I don't know, perhaps someone on list knows
the particulars.
About the multiple active fwd'ing paths for mhome'd pe-ce... I think someone
told me that is a benefit that evpn brings to the table... but I heard it
has something to do with per-vlan load sharing across
On 9 Oct 2017 18:52, "Aaron Gould" wrote:
Thanks James, What exactly are you trying to figure out ? you
mentioned " I was trying to work out the mechanism for signalling the
non-designated-forwarding PE-CE link to go operationally "down"...
-Aaron
I was wondering how it works.
The RFC d
Thanks James, What exactly are you trying to figure out ? you mentioned "
I was trying to work out the mechanism for signalling the
non-designated-forwarding PE-CE link to go operationally "down"...
-Aaron
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-n
On 9 October 2017 at 12:49, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Ah. I think I might be on to something. I see that when I do a BGP VPLS
> (fec 128, rfc 4761) style config, then I do NOT see the pw's active between
> the non-designated-forwarding multi-homed pe's... and, this seems to be
> automatic. (no mhomi
Ah. I think I might be on to something. I see that when I do a BGP VPLS
(fec 128, rfc 4761) style config, then I do NOT see the pw's active between
the non-designated-forwarding multi-homed pe's... and, this seems to be
automatic. (no mhoming config needed in my lab) It seems in that link there
Please let me know where I'm not understand this correctly.
I have what I understand to be a LDP VPLS configured network, additionally
with a functional multi-homing configuration. It's all working. shutting
down the operational/designated forwarder pe-ce interface causes a good
failover to th
14 matches
Mail list logo
