[j-nsp] L2VPN Termination

[Paul Stewart]

Just wanted to say thanks - that worked great and it's now rolled into
production with the customer....

Paul


From:  Krasimir Avramski <krasi at smartcom.bg>
Date:  Tuesday, 30 July, 2013 2:08 AM
To:  Paul Stewart <paul at paulstewart.org>
Cc:  Juniper-Nsp <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject:  Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination

> Hi,
> 
> On the core instance: set routing-instances xyz_IP_Transit protocols vpls
> connectivity-type irb
> 
> Krasi
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Paul Stewart <paul at paulstewart.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>