[j-nsp] L2VPN Termination

[Paul Stewart]

Thanks folksŠ

I have an issue with implementing this and was hoping for a "sanity
check". ;)

On the "core" side of this implementation I am not taking the VPLS
instance to any form of a physical interface - I only have an IRB
interface and the VPLS path will not come up.  I'm assuming the VPLS path
won't establish because of lack of a physical interface or is it just
something else that I've misconfigured?

Core Router (MX480):

paul at xxxxxxxxxxx> show configuration routing-instances
xyz_IP_Transit {
    instance-type vpls;
    vlan-id 100;
    routing-interface irb.100;
    route-distinguisher xx.xx.xx.xx:100;
    vrf-target target:11666:9100;
    protocols {
        vpls {
            site-range 20;
            no-tunnel-services;
            site Core {
                site-identifier 2;
            }
        }
    }
}

CPE Facing Router (MX80):


paul at dis1.peterborough4> show configuration routing-instances
xyz_IP_Transit {
    instance-type vpls;
    vlan-id 100;
    interface ge-1/1/0.100;
    route-distinguisher xx.xx.xx.xx:100;
    vrf-target target:11666:9100;
    protocols {
        vpls {
            site-range 20;
            no-tunnel-services;
            site customer {
                site-identifier 1;
            }
        }
    }
}


Thanks,

Paul


On 2013-07-26 2:08 PM, "Tarko Tikan" <tarko at lanparty.ee> wrote:

>hey,
>
>> 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
>
>+1 for this. Not a hack, we have been using this for a while now and got
>all major bugs fixed over time. In production for hundreds of thousands
>of customers.
>
>Don't use lt- interfaces if you don't have to.
>
>> 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.
>
>+1 for this as well. This will supposedly support all the features
>physical ports do so you can do HQoS etc.
>
>-- 
>tarko
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp