[j-nsp] Next Gen MVPN flooding assistance

[Chris Evans]

To those who didn't know.. mLDP looks to be supported in 11.2... Hooraayy!

provider-tunnel {
    ldp-p2mp;
    selective {
        wildcard-group-inet {
            wildcard-source {
                ldp-p2mp;


On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks for the replies everyone, i've made it further.. One last thing
> stumping me. When I configure a threshold-rate for P-tunnel switchover it
> doesn't seem to work. I get flooding to both PE's even after the multicast
> stream is over the configured rate. If i configure the threshold-rate to be
> 0 everything works as expect, traffic only goes to where it needs to be. Am
> I missing something from the configuration?
>
>     provider-tunnel {
>         rsvp-te {
>             label-switched-path-template {
>                 default-template;
>             }
>         }
>         selective {
>             group 239.192.0.0/16 {
>                 wildcard-source {
>                     threshold-rate 500;
>                     rsvp-te {
>                         label-switched-path-template {
>                             default-template;
>                         }
>                     }
>                 }
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Krasimir Avramski <krasi at smartcom.bg>wrote:
>
>> It is RI context. Actually group and source are (C-S, C-G).
>> Please refer the wildcard usage in docs:
>>
>> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-vpns/topic-40020.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Krasi
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Okay that is what I was thinking.. I had the initial configuration
>>> without the selective and saw the results I asked about. I then put in
>>> selective configuration, but am unsure if I really have it right.
>>>
>>> What should the source be? routing-instance IP or global IP? I assume the
>>> group should be SSM?
>>>
>>>
>>> My original configuration which I saw the flooding:
>>>     provider-tunnel {
>>>         rsvp-te {
>>>             label-switched-path-template {
>>>                 default-template;
>>>
>>> My configuration that I made to be selective:
>>>     provider-tunnel {
>>>         rsvp-te {
>>>             label-switched-path-template {
>>>                 default-template;
>>>             }
>>>         }
>>>         selective {
>>>             group 232.1.1.3/32 {
>>>                 wildcard-source {
>>>                     threshold-rate 500;
>>>                     rsvp-te {
>>>                         label-switched-path-template {
>>>                             default-template;
>>>                         }
>>>                     }
>>>                 }
>>>                 source 172.16.1.3/32 {
>>>                     rsvp-te {
>>>                         label-switched-path-template {
>>>                             default-template;
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Krasimir Avramski <krasi at smartcom.bg>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> It is normal behavior with inclusive P-tunnels (in your case P2MP
>>>> lsps).It is default without explicit selective configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Krasi
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  I took a few minutes to setup NG-MVPN using RSVP-TE P2MP LSP in my
>>>>> lab. I
>>>>> have 3 boxes setup in a triangle format. I have multicast flowing
>>>>> properly,
>>>>> however I'm seeing a weird anomaly that i'd like to get some
>>>>> clarification
>>>>> on.****
>>>>> All of the P2MP RSVP sessions are up properly, things appear to be
>>>>> signaled
>>>>> properly, traffic flows properly on the devices that should be getting
>>>>> it.
>>>>> What I am seeing is on the sender PE, whenever there is a receiver on a
>>>>> far-end PE's requesting traffic the sender PE floods its to both
>>>>> downstream
>>>>> PEs. It looks to be flooding it across two LSP paths as I see traffic
>>>>> rates
>>>>> double what they should be. If I stop the receiver both PEs stop
>>>>> getting
>>>>> traffic, as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the PE that doesn't have the receiver if I do 'show multicast route
>>>>> instance <name> extension' it shows that route in the table, shows that
>>>>> is
>>>>> received via PIM  (forwarding devices show MVPN) and it also shows it
>>>>> as
>>>>> pruned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone seen this?
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>