[j-nsp] VPLS Frustrations (Juniper - Cisco)
Keegan Holley
keegan.holley at sungard.com
Tue Mar 27 10:54:13 EDT 2012
Tagging isn't supported with the encapsulation you're using. That was the
only thing I found wrong with your config. Is yourT-LDP session ok? Do
you have a lab router you can use to try this on? What code are you
running? If a vanilla VPLS config weren't working in a particular version
of JunOS that should be in release notes somewhere. Did they verify your
T-LDP and mention your encapsulation? Not that JTAC has ever come up with
the wrong answer for me, mind you.
2012/3/27 Ben Boyd <ben at sinatranetwork.com>
> The CE's can tag or not tag, they want freedom to do whatever they wish.
>
> There is no BGP. It's all LDP signaled. That's why an L2VPN isn't
> possible and VPLS is our only way.
>
>
> I'm trying to accomplish Q-in-Q or more exactly "possiblyQ-in-Q".
>
> JTAC thinks this is a bug as the Juniper is sending STP traffic and
> tagging correctly, but it isn't decapsulating the STP traffic coming back.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Ben Boyd
> ben at sinatranetwork.com
> http://about.me/benboyd
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> Try changing your encapsulation to flexible ethernet services. It's been
> a while since I set this up from scratch, but I've never seen a vpls
> neighbor defined only site-id's and site ranges. That may not be your
> problem though. Are your CE's tagging? encap vpls only supports untagged
> packets from the CE. vlan-vpls or flexible is required to pass dot1q
> tags. You should think about doing q-in-q to isolate your topology from
> the customers. What does your BGP look like? Both L2VPN and VPLS are
> actually BGP signalled so your (MP)BGP config is important too.
>
>
>
>
> 2012/3/22 Ben Boyd <ben at sinatranetwork.com>
>
>> A straight l2 circuit wouldn't work because of a switched-network between
>> a PE and the CE.
>>
>> L2VPN wouldn't work because BGP isn't used as MPLS transport mechanism.
>>
>>
>> Updated Setup:
>>
>> CE switch #1 (untagged/tagged) -------- MX240 (11.4R1.14) -------- P
>> router -------- Cisco PE (tagged) -------- Switched Network -------- CE
>> switch #2 (untagged/tagged)
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>> Ben Boyd
>> ben at sinatranetwork.com
>> http://about.me/benboyd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Ben Boyd wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I'm running into VPLS frustrations in an MX. I'd like to create a VPLS
>> instance in which a customer can plug in a device on any port in our
>> network and we'll pass the traffic no matter what type of traffic it is
>> (we're just a wire). For example, they can plug in a switch/router where
>> the interface is tagging traffic or not tagging traffic.
>> >
>> > This particular example is one CE-switch to another CE-Switch, but
>> we'll eventually add several additional switches and routers in the same
>> VPLS instance.
>> >
>> > Right now, I am seeing BPDU's received from one CE switch to another CE
>> switch, but I'm not seeing any coming back.
>> >
>> > I'm also not able to ping from CE to CE on any VLAN.
>> >
>> > Here is the Setup:
>> >
>> > CE switch #1 (untagged/tagged) -------- MX240 (11.4R1.14) -------- P
>> router -------- Cisco PE -------- CE switch #2 (untagged/tagged)
>> >
>> > CE switch #2 is receiving BPDUs from CE switch #1, however CE switch #1
>> isn't receiving BPDU's from CE switch #2
>> >
>> >
>> > Relevant MX240 config:
>> > admin at interop-MX240# show interfaces ge-2/1/0
>> > mtu 9192;
>> > encapsulation ethernet-vpls;
>> > unit 0 {
>> > family vpls;
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > admin at interop-MX240# show routing-instances VPLS2001
>> > instance-type vpls;
>> > vlan-id all;
>> > interface ge-2/1/0.0;
>> > protocols {
>> > vpls {
>> > no-tunnel-services;
>> > vpls-id 100;
>> > mtu 9216;
>> > neighbor 172.16.0.11;
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > admin at interop-MX240# show protocols layer2-control
>> > mac-rewrite {
>> > interface ge-2/1/0 {
>> > protocol {
>> > stp;
>> > vtp;
>> > cdp;
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > The VPLS VC is up from MX240 to Cisco PE.
>> >
>> > admin at interop-MX240# run show vpls connections
>> > Instance: VPLS2001
>> > VPLS-id: 100
>> > Neighbor Type St Time last up # Up
>> trans
>> > 172.16.0.11(vpls-id 100) rmt Up Mar 22 11:13:33 2012
>> 1
>> > Remote PE: 172.16.0.11, Negotiated control-word: No
>> > Incoming label: 262151, Outgoing label: 119
>> > Negotiated PW status TLV: No
>> > Local interface: lsi.1052423, Status: Up, Encapsulation: ETHERNET
>> > Description: Intf - vpls VPLS2001 neighbor 172.16.0.11 vpls-id
>> 100
>> >
>> >
>> > Cisco_PE#show mpls l2transport vc
>> >
>> > Local intf Local circuit Dest address VC ID
>> Status
>> > ------------- -------------------------- --------------- ----------
>> ----------
>> > VFI vpls1 VFI 172.16.0.12 100 UP
>> >
>> >
>> > If anyone has some config advice, i'm open to it!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------
>> > Ben Boyd
>> > ben at sinatranetwork.com
>> > http://about.me/benboyd
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list