[j-nsp] VPLS Frustrations (Juniper - Cisco)

[Humair Ali]

Hi Ben

not sure if you raised it before, but if you are looking at QinQ, and
point-to-point is a viable solution, you should be able to do QinQ accross
L2circuit .

In regards to the Switched network between PE & CE , why not use CFM to
monitor the service end to end.

but if you are planning to add more site , then it might become cumbersome
though

Regards

On 27 March 2012 15:33, Ben Boyd <ben at sinatranetwork.com> wrote:

> 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.
> you hve a swtiched network
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>



-- 
Humair