[c-nsp] L2VPN Pseudowire Redundancy

[Rakesh Hegde]

How about creating two psudowires , PE1- PE3 and PE2-PE4 ? This will give
you two logical point to point connections between SW1 and SW2 and at the
same time take care of device (PE) failure .  STP,by default,  will take
care of the redundancy. You may also want to use UDLD and/or PAGP or LACP to
provide end to end link status.

-Rakesh.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner at cisco.com>wrote:

> I would suggest that you treat these 2 parallel PW's as 2 separate L2
> connections.
> Each connection would be handed over to the end customer separately, and
> the customer can run STP end to end between their CE's.
> This way the failover between PW1 and PW2 would be based on CE-to-CE STP
>
> Alternatively, if the customer is using L3 CE's, then its just 2 parallel
> L3 links...
>
> Arie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mateusz B?aszczyk
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 21:40 PM
> To: giesen at snickers.org
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2VPN Pseudowire Redundancy
>
> you would have to land these xconnects on VPLS instance.
> so add 4 more devices that would be your N-PEs with VPLS instance and your
> current PEs would become U-PEs connected to the rest of the MPLS cloud with
> 1 xconnect to the "active" N-PE and backup xconnect to the "standby" N-PE.
>
> But I am not sure it is possible on 7206.
>
>
>
> --
> -mat
>
>
> 2008/11/2 Gary T. Giesen <giesen at snickers.org>:
> > I'm not sure if this is possible, but maybe someone can give me some
> > input on how to best achieve this.
> >
> > I'm labbing EoMPLS using 4x 7206 VXR. I'd like to create a fully
> > redundant pseudowire (from the provider persective).
> >
> > The idea is to put two PE routers at each end of the pseudowire (with
> > a common VLAN at each end shared through a switch), so that I can
> > fully lose a PE router and the VC still stays up.
> >
> > The topology looks like this:
> >
> >                              [PE1]                                 [PE3]
> > CE1 --- [SW1] ---<          > [MPLS CLOUD] <           >--- [SW2] --- CE2
> >                              [PE2]                                 [PE4]
> >
> > I've tried a number of ways using xconnect-peers and backup peers (per
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/fspseudo.html
> > ), and it works great when I only have redundancy on one end, but as
> > soon as I add the 4th PE, nothing works anymore.
> >
> > When I add the 4th PE router, PE1 forms a VC with PE3, and PE2 forms a
> > VC with PE4, when in reality I should only ever have one VC formed at
> > any given time, and PE2 should never form a VC with PE4 until PE1 or
> > PE3 goes down.
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggested configurations?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > GG
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>