[j-nsp] L2VPN Termination

[Paul Stewart]

Hey Evgeny...

Yes, worked great.  The key was to include "connectivity-type irb" which
was missing originally...

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

Traffic wise, this customer does up to 400Mb/s


No LT interfaces involved as end up doing it inside a VPLS instance via
IRB interface :)

Paul


On 2013-09-17 11:24 AM, "Terebizh, Evgeny" <eterebizh at amt.ru> wrote:

>Hi Paul, 
>Just curious. 
>Does it seem to work well?
>What is the maximum amount of traffic going through the lt interface?
>Aren't you facing any limits upon that?
>
>Thanks,   
>/Evgeny
>
>________________________________________
>From: juniper-nsp [juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] on behalf of Paul
>Stewart [paul at paulstewart.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:05 AM
>To: Krasimir Avramski
>Cc: Juniper-Nsp
>Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination
>
>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/configurat
>>>>>io
>>>>> >> 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
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp