On (2012-11-02 11:04 +0530), Arun Kumar wrote:
> Option 1:
>
> encapsulation vlan-ccc;
> vlan-id 601
> input-vlan-map pop;
> output-vlan-map push;
Shouldn't work. VXR side is VLAN mode, and will barf. Missing family 'ccc'.
> Option 2:
>
>
> encap vlan-ccc;
> vlan-tags outer 601;
> outpu
> I ve tried all of the recommended options provided but it did not work out,
...
> if the VLAN ID are same on both Cisco and Juniper, traffic is passing
> through but with different VLAN ID, traffic is not...
>
> Steinar - when you said, pseudowire working fine between cisco and juniper,
> did yo
I ve tried all of the recommended options provided but it did not work out,
Option 1:
encapsulation vlan-ccc;
vlan-id 601
input-vlan-map pop;
output-vlan-map push;
Option 2:
encap vlan-ccc;
vlan-tags outer 601;
output-vlan-map swap;
family ccc;
Option 3:
encapsula
On (2012-11-01 15:50 -0400), Mike Devlin wrote:
> troubleshooting is troubleshooting. If this isnt working, making the
> slight change on one end, is going to hurt anything, and may or may not
OP posted original config, it was broken, working config was posted to him
earlier.
--
++ytti
_
troubleshooting is troubleshooting. If this isnt working, making the
slight change on one end, is going to hurt anything, and may or may not
result in the resolution or the identification of a bug in the code line,
on either side of the equation.
There no point in negating the validity of the sug
> i would still say, its worth the effort of swapping the vlan tags, and
> seeing if the issue continues. Wouldnt be the first Cisco <-> Juniper
> "disagreement" and likely wont be the last.
Well now - pseudowires between Cisco and Juniper routers have been
working for years.
Steinar Haug, Neth
i would still say, its worth the effort of swapping the vlan tags, and
seeing if the issue continues. Wouldnt be the first Cisco <-> Juniper
"disagreement" and likely wont be the last.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-11-01 19:07 +0100), sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>
> >
On (2012-11-01 19:07 +0100), sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> In port mode the routers will happily transport whatever they are
> given, including VLAN tags.
Quite, but they would be CVLANs technically, not SVLAN. If you are
transporting SVLAN it's VLAN mode.
--
++ytti
_
> > Is that my dyslexia, or yours?
>
> It doesn't matter in port more or vlan mode. In port mode you'd not
> transport the SVLANs.
In port mode the routers will happily transport whatever they are
given, including VLAN tags.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
___
On (2012-11-01 16:22 +0200), Mihai Gabriel wrote:
> input-vlan-map {
>swap;
> vlan-id 610;
> }
There is absolutely no need for this, Cisco has been swapping SVLAN in VLAN
EVPN for 7-8 years now. It's done implicitly and transparently.
--
++ytti
__
Using vlan 610 on Cisco (the configuration is correct) and vlan 601 on
Juniper, the Juniper configuration should look like this:
vlan-id 601;
input-vlan-map {
swap;
vlan-id 610;
}
output-vlan-map swap;
}
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Mike Devlin wrote:
> vlan 610 on Cisco side
On (2012-11-01 10:03 -0400), Mike Devlin wrote:
> vlan 610 on Cisco side, VS vlan 601 on Juniper side?
>
> Is that my dyslexia, or yours?
It doesn't matter in port more or vlan mode. In port mode you'd not
transport the SVLANs. In VLAN mode you'd transport them, but you'd swap the
ID (retaining
On (2012-11-01 17:56 +0530), Arun Kumar wrote:
> i m trying to do VLAN mode.
Then you need to stop popping and pushing, as you want to transport the
SVLAN. So just remove them and add output-vlan-map swap and you're golden.
--
++ytti
___
juniper-nsp
vlan 610 on Cisco side, VS vlan 601 on Juniper side?
Is that my dyslexia, or yours?
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Mihai Gabriel wrote:
> I configured something similar (vpls instead vlan-ccc) with something like
> this on Juniper:
>
> Interfaces {
> ge-1/1/6 {
> unit 9
I configured something similar (vpls instead vlan-ccc) with something like
this on Juniper:
Interfaces {
ge-1/1/6 {
unit 901 {
description "C-PE2 to S-CE2";
encapsulation vlan-vpls;
vlan-id 901;
i m trying to do VLAN mode.
below is the previous config that I tried,
nieg@LAB-MX-PE5# show interfaces ge-1/1/0.601
encapsulation vlan-ccc;
vlan-id 601
input-vlan-map pop;
output-vlan-map push;
[edit]
nieg@LAB-MX-PE5# show protocols l2circuit
neighbor 10.20.0.2 {
interface ge-1/1/0.601 {
On (2012-11-01 16:57 +0530), Arun Kumar wrote:
> But in my case, Cisco side NPEG2 router. I will arrange for 7600 and do the
> testing with MX80 and let you know.
It would be useful if you'd show your config. I'm not sure what you are
trying to do, port mode, vlan mode?
You can get both VLAN and
Hi Benny,
Thanks for the reply. I tried the option of "input-vlan-map pop" and
"output-vlan-map push" in MX previously.
When I change the encapsulation type to "ethernet" under "edit protocols
l2circuit" the Layer 2 circuit itself going down displaying EM
"encapsulation mismatch". This did not wo
Arun Kumar writes:
> Any option or workaround for this.
Have you tried just popping the VLAN completely and on the Cisco-side
simply doing:
xconnect 192.0.2.2 1234567 encapsulation mpls
On the MX80:
unit 1108 {
encapsulation vlan-ccc;
vlan-id 1108;
input-vlan-map pop;
output-v
Hi,
I am testing Layer 2 circuit between Juniper MX-80 with Cisco platform.
When the VLAN ID of both attachment circuit is matching, then traffic is
flowing through emulated Layer 2 circuit. But when the VLAN ID is not
matchingon both attachment circuit, then Layer 2 circuit remains up but the
tra
20 matches
Mail list logo
