[j-nsp] VPLS issues

2012-11-30 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
Does anybody have any experience with forced LSP path selection for VPLS circuits? Long story short, when we fire up traffic on one particular VPLS instance, we're seeing SOME of the traffic it's carrying being blackholed. The pattern is one of certain IP or even TCP port pairs being blocked,

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issues

2012-11-30 Thread Vladislav VASILEV
You need to use the strict keyword when installing the LSP. Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2012, at 17:29, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote: Does anybody have any experience with forced LSP path selection for VPLS circuits? Long story short, when we fire up traffic on one

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issues

2012-11-30 Thread Christian
Hello, Any luck with the strict option at the install-nexthop ? Rgds, Christian Le 30/11/2012 17:41, Richard A Steenbergen a écrit : Does anybody have any experience with forced LSP path selection for VPLS circuits? Long story short, when we fire up traffic on one particular VPLS instance,

Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issues

2012-11-30 Thread Krasimir Avramski
Hi strict is only useful in case you want to cease vpls service when all lsps matching .*-SILVER.* are down. Default behavior (without strict keyword) with empty(or down) install-nexthop match is to ignore term. Since the aim is to route over single lsp why regex-lsp is used? Why not