[j-nsp] Flexible Ethernet Services Question

[OBrien, Will]

We use irb with bridge domains defined. (mx960)

Will O'Brien

On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Paul Stewart <paul at paulstewart.org> wrote:

> Thanks Richard...
> 
> We'll experiment a little bit... another helpful person offline suggested
> using ccc with l2vpn between the ports but I'm thinking this might add
> unnecessary overheads.  Today on another box we are using IRB as you
> mentioned ... in both of these situations this is an interm as we migrate
> from a layer2 connected network over to an MPLS based backbone.....
> 
> Thankfully also, both sides are expecting the same VLAN ID's making this
> "interm" solution much easier ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras at e-gerbil.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:41 PM
> To: Paul Stewart
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Flexible Ethernet Services Question
> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:05:26AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
>> 
>> Using flexible Ethernet services on an interface I understand that I 
>> can set the physical interface to vlan-tagging and then on a per 
>> logical unit basis set encapsulation?  Today, it's a VLAN trunk that 
>> comes in and peels off several VLAN's to their final destinations but 
>> also some SVI interfaces that terminate as layer3 interfaces locally.
> 
> Correct. Using encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services removes earlier 
> restrictions on which vlan-ids could be used for which services. Back in 
> the good old days of the original ethernet PICs, if you wanted to mix IP 
> and CCC terminations across multiple vlans on the same interface you had 
> to configure "encapsulation vlan-ccc", which limited the VLAN ID ranges 
> you could use to 1-511 for IP and 512-1023 for CCC. There is basically 
> no penalty to doing flexible-ethernet-services on modern hardware, and 
> all MX ports support it (not just the expensive ones).
> 
>> So on port 4/1/9 there is a VLAN trunked interface and I want to take 
>> vlan 55 and vlan 119 and "pass them through" to another trunked port 
>> via 5/1/9 out to another device (Juniper EX4200 in this case).  But I 
>> also want to take vlan 3 and vlan 10 and have them terminate via 
>> layer3 on the MX box itself.
>> 
>> Is family CCC the correct/best way to do this?  I presume I need to 
>> create the VLAN's on the MX itself or does it matter when it's just 
>> passing through?
> 
> Close, you'd want to use "encapsulation vlan-ccc" on the unit config. 
> Then just create the mapping between the two units, like so:
> 
> protocols {
>    connections {
>        interface-switch yournamehere {
>            interface ge-4/1/9.55;
>            interface ge-5/1/9.55;
>        }
>        interface-switch yournamehere2 {
>            interface ge-4/1/9.119;
>            interface ge-5/1/9.119;
>        }
>    }
> }
> 
> The advantage to this method is that it works on all Juniper's (well, 
> historic Juniper's at any rate, if you want something thats backwards 
> compatible with M/T/etc use this, I'm sure it will probably catch your 
> SRX on fire if you try it there :P), and is time tested and guaranteed 
> not to do anything stupid. The disadvantage is that you can only do a 
> point to point link this way. Also, if you end up mismatching vlan IDs 
> later on, you'll probably need to manually strip the vlan tags as they 
> come in, since the default mode would be to carry the vlan tags into the 
> CCC (which obviously wouldn't work if the other side is expecting a 
> different vlan id :P). For example (and this is also supported on all MX 
> interfaces and most modern hardware, but on older HW it was a quad price 
> pic thing):
> 
>        unit 55 {
>            encapsulation vlan-ccc;
>            vlan-id 55;
>            input-vlan-map pop;
>            output-vlan-map push;
>        }
> 
> You could also configure bridge-domains, which are a MX specific 
> feature, to do multi-point L2 switching between these endpoints. I've 
> personally never done this though, as IMHO you have to be clinically 
> insane to spend money on a perfectly good MX port and then waste it 
> doing L2 switching, but you could always RTFM if you wanna try it. :)
> 
> -- 
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp