[j-nsp] VPLS tunnel LSP establishment

[Erdem Sener]

Monika,

 I would say establishing neighborships, tunnels etc. with router
id's/loopbacks is generally a good idea, unless you need to otherwise
for a very good reason.

 Doing so should not only let you easily use alternate paths between
your P/PE routers as mentioned before but also keep 'clean'
configurations.

 Cheers,
 Erdem

On 8/2/07, Monika M <monika.vpls at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
> In this case, should I configure the BGP peer address (for l2vpn signaling)
> also as loopback address?
> (Since tunnel LSP association will be based on the BGP discovered peer
> address. Not sure whether tunnel LSP will be searched for the nexthop field
> in the L2VPN NLRI or BGP identifier in the packet.
>
> Regards,
> Monika
>
>
> On 8/2/07, Tomasz Szewczyk <tomeks at man.poznan.pl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my opinion it is much better to use router ID (loopback). You can
> > experience some problems when using interface address if it goes down. I
> > assume you have redundant connections/paths between PE1 and PE2.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tomek
> >
> > Monika M pisze:
> > > site1---PE1 ----- P1-----------P2-----------(x)-PE2----site2
> > >
> > > I have BGP peering between PE1-PE2 for having L2VPN service.
> > > L2VPN configuration steps mandate configuration of tunnel LSP
> > establishment.
> > > Should I have an LSP for the PE2's interface address x or PE2's router
> > ID.
> > >
> > > TIA
> > > Monika
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomasz Szewczyk
> > Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center
> > e-mail: tomeks at man.poznan.pl
> >
> > fax: +48 61 8525954
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>