[j-nsp] L2VPN Termination

[Paul Stewart]

AhhŠ good thinking - we already do that today for some Metaswitch stuff Š
why didn't I think of that before? ;)

On 2013-07-25 7:50 PM, "Caillin Bathern" <caillinb at commtelns.com> wrote:

>Alternatively use routed VPLS on the core box if it is also an MX and a
>standard VPLS instance on the edge:
>http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.2/topics/task/configuratio
>n/vpls-irb-solutions.html
>
>Or if you are game then in the next release you should get "psX"
>interfaces on the MX for direct PWHT although it will still be bound to
>an lt- interface underneath.  Documentation already exists for this for
>13.1.
>
>Caillin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf
>Of Paul Stewart
>Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 8:11 AM
>To: ml at kenweb.org; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination
>
>>
>>
>>
>>lt- interfaces are definitely a way to do it.  In my case I put an lt-
>>interface in a VPLS instance that was paired to another lt- with
>>"family inet .." in a virtual router instance.  I had a routed VPLS for
>
>>names sake.  In my situation though the lt- interface doesn't move much
>
>>traffic.  I'm unsure of what might happen if you tried to move real
>>traffic through it.
>
>I'll find out what 400 Mb/s or so of traffic looks like on Monday haha
>;)
>
>Paul
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>--
>Message  protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and
>content filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg
>