[c-nsp] Possible split horizon issue with bgp signalled vpls

[Jason Lixfeld]

As far as I understood from talking to the developers, the BGP issues were inside platform independent code, so I'd presume it wouldn't be XR specific, but don't hold me to that. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 18, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Nick Ryce <nick at fluency.net.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> It sounds very similar.  If a bgp session was established direct rather than via an RR would this fix it I wonder?
> 
> Nick
> -- 
> Nick Ryce
> 
> Fluency Communications Ltd.
> e. nick at fluency.net.uk
> w. http://fluency.net.uk/
> t. 0845 874 7000
> 
>> On 19 Nov 2013, at 02:02, Jason Lixfeld <jason at lixfeld.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Issues I was having with BGP signalled VPLS a couple of months ago in 15.3(2)S1 resulted in filing CSCui46390.  I'd otherwise suggest trying 15.3(3)S1a to see fix works, but that version seems to have introduced CSCuh05321, so I think that might end badly for you; it did for me :(
>> 
>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Nick Ryce <nick at fluency.net.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I’m tearing my hair out with this one and can’t figure out how to resolve it.
>>> 
>>> I have 3 switches that have a BGP signalled VPLS with customer routers hanging off the end of all 3 ( one switch has 2 cpe )
>>> 
>>> All have the RD 56595:4 and RT 56595:4
>>> 
>>> All pseudo wires are up between the switches with config snippets below:-
>>> 
>>> Switch 1
>>> 
>>> VFI name: FLVPLS004, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP
>>> VPN ID: 4, VE-ID: 3, VE-SIZE: 10 
>>> RD: 56595:4, RT: 56595:4, 56595:4
>>> Bridge-Domain 903 attachment circuits:
>>>   Vlan903  
>>> Neighbors connected via pseudowires:
>>> Interface          Peer Address    VE-ID  Local Label  Remote Label    S
>>> pseudowire100033   46.226.0.9      2      402          39              Y
>>> pseudowire100037   46.226.0.14     1      401          49              Y
>>> 
>>> This switch has 1 cpe with any vlan tags stripped and can ping all devices on the other switches
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Switch 2
>>> 
>>> VFI name: FLVPLS004, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP
>>> VPN ID: 4, VE-ID: 1, VE-SIZE: 10 
>>> RD: 56595:4, RT: 56595:4, 56595:4
>>> Bridge-Domain 11 attachment circuits:
>>>   Vlan11  
>>> Neighbors connected via pseudowires:
>>> Interface          Peer Address    VE-ID  Local Label  Remote Label    S
>>> pseudowire100015   46.226.0.12     3      49           401             Y
>>> pseudowire100018   46.226.0.9      2      48           37              Y
>>> 
>>> This switch has 2 cpe’s with any vlan tags stripped.  They can ping each other and the device connected to switch 1 but cannot ping device on switch 3
>>> 
>>> Switch 3
>>> 
>>> VFI name: FLVPLS004, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP
>>> VPN ID: 4, VE-ID: 2, VE-SIZE: 10 
>>> RD: 56595:4, RT: 56595:4, 56595:4
>>> Bridge-Domain 4 attachment circuits:
>>>   Vlan4  
>>> Neighbors connected via pseudowires:
>>> Interface          Peer Address    VE-ID  Local Label  Remote Label    S
>>> pseudowire100028   46.226.0.12     3      39           402             Y
>>> pseudowire100027   46.226.0.14     1      37           28              Y
>>> 
>>> This switch has 1 cpe device connected with any vlan tags stripped and can only ping the device on switch 1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Each switch can see all the correct mac addresses.
>>> 
>>> It sounds like split horizon but I assumed this was only to do with the local switch?
>>> 
>>> All devices are running 15.3(3)S
>>> 
>>> Any help much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>