[c-nsp] me3600 : l2protocol forward stp on EVC

[BASSAGET Cédric]

Hello
tried another way this morning. reconfigured EVCs like this tu avoir tag
popping :
 service instance 1439 ethernet
  encapsulation dot1q 1439
  bridge-domain 1439
 !
 service instance 1440 ethernet
  encapsulation dot1q 1440
  bridge-domain 1439
 !

As soon as I add "l2protocol forward stp" or "l2protocol tunnel stp" on one
of the two EVCs, I have spanning tree problems on my switches.

Any idea ?
Regards

Le mar. 8 déc. 2020 à 11:33, BASSAGET Cédric <cedric.bassaget.ml at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> Hello,
>
> I need to interconnect two L2 domains. I was planning to use a me3600 for
> this :
>
> interface port-channel 1
> ...
>  service instance 1439 ethernet
>   encapsulation dot1q 1439 second-dot1q 1-4094
>   rewrite ingress tag pop 1
>   bridge-domain 1439
>  !
>  service instance 1440 ethernet
>   encapsulation dot1q 1440 second-dot1q 1-4094
>   rewrite ingress tag pop 1
>   bridge-domain 1439
>  !
>
> Works fine, hosts on same C-VLAN on both sides of bridge-domain can ping.
>
> As I need my interconnection to be STP-transparent, I tried to add
> "l2protocol forward stp" on these 2 EVCs.
>
> This resulted in side effects on my backbone, and I saw STP events on the
> other side of my port-channel (n3k switch) :
> 2020 Dec  8 06:32:37 N3K-eqx-pa3-1 %STP-2-BLOCK_PVID_LOCAL: Blocking
> port-channel1 on MST0000. Inconsistent local vlan.
>
> Question : why is the port-channel affected by l2protocol forward on an
> EVC ?
>
> I guess I'll have to remove the "second-dot1q 1-4094" to allow untagged
> trafic on EVCs, and make L2CP work correctly.
>
> Is this the right way to do ?
> Thanks for your help.
> Regards,
> Cédric
>