[j-nsp] VLAN sub-ints and VPLS

[Tom Storey]

Thanks for the responses so far, heres a few more details about what
Im experiencing at the moment.

So I start with something like this:

# show interfaces ge-0/0/12
description "VPLS test interface";
encapsulation ethernet-vpls;
unit 0 {
    family vpls;
}

And I want to pop the VLAN header on output and push it on input:

# show interfaces ge-0/0/12
description "VPLS test interface";
encapsulation ethernet-vpls;
unit 0 {
    ##
    ## Warning: Only compatible with vpls vlan encapsulations
    ##
    input-vlan-map {
        push;
        tag-protocol-id 0x8100;
        vlan-id 123;
    }
    ##
    ## Warning: Only compatible with vpls vlan encapsulations
    ##
    output-vlan-map pop;
    family vpls;
}

Ok, apply a unit wise encap:

# show interfaces ge-0/0/12
description "VPLS test interface";
encapsulation ethernet-vpls;
unit 0 {
    encapsulation vlan-vpls;
    input-vlan-map {
        push;
        tag-protocol-id 0x8100;
        vlan-id 123;
    }
    output-vlan-map pop;
    family vpls;
}

No errors, try to commit:

# commit
error: VLAN Encapsulation: Not allowed on untagged interfaces
[edit interfaces ge-0/0/12]
  'unit 0'
     invalid encapsulation
error: configuration check-out failed

Ok, lets add some VLAN tagging (I did also try regular "vlan-tagging"):

# set interfaces ge-0/0/12 flexible-vlan-tagging

[edit]
# show interfaces ge-0/0/12
description "VPLS test interface";
##
## Warning: Only compatible with vpls vlan encapsulations
##
flexible-vlan-tagging;
encapsulation ethernet-vpls;
unit 0 {
    encapsulation vlan-vpls;
    input-vlan-map {
        push;
        tag-protocol-id 0x8100;
        vlan-id 123;
    }
    output-vlan-map pop;
    family vpls;
}

Alright we'll change the encap:

# show interfaces ge-0/0/12
description "VPLS test interface";
vlan-tagging;
encapsulation vlan-vpls;
unit 0 {
    encapsulation vlan-vpls;
    input-vlan-map {
        push;
        tag-protocol-id 0x8100;
        vlan-id 123;
    }
    output-vlan-map pop;
    family vpls;
}

Great, no more errors, try to commit again:

# commit
[edit interfaces ge-0/0/12]
  'unit 0'
    vlan map ge-0/0/12: input-vlan-map and output-vlan-map are valid
on untagged interfaces only for ethernet-ccc and ethernet-vpls
encapsulations
error: configuration check-out failed

But you just told me I need to use  tagging? And there is no
ethernet-vpls encapsulation for units. wtf?

Maybe its just not possible on an SRX, perhaps it doesnt have the
smarts, or maybe Im just missing something really obvious.

Any help appreciated. Cheers!

On 20 January 2014 04:01, Will Orton <will at loopfree.net> wrote:
>> ge-0/0/12 {
>>     encapsulation ethernet-vpls;
>>     unit 0 {
>>         encapsulation vlan-vpls;
>>         input-vlan-map {
>>             push;
>>             tag-protocol-id 0x8100;
>>             vlan-id 123;
>>         }
>>         output-vlan-map pop;
>>         family vpls;
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> but I dont seem to be able to get the right combination of
>> encapsulations and other settings to be able to commit.
>>
>> Q2. Does anyone have a working example I could look at?
>
>
> This works for me on MX to swap .1q 2700 to 603 in the VPLS.
>
>     ge-1/0/4 {
>         flexible-vlan-tagging; // plain vlan-tagging would be ok too
>         encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
>         unit 2700 {
>             encapsulation vlan-vpls;
>             vlan-tags outer 2700;
>             input-vlan-map {
>                 swap;
>                 vlan-id 603;
>             }
>             output-vlan-map swap;
>             family vpls;
>         }
>
> So your example looks okay except the encaps on the phys interface.
> I haven't tried on SRX (yet); not sure what is correct if you don't
> want or can't do flexible-ethernet-services.
>
>
>> Also, are VPLS and L2VPN the same thing or different? Once source I
>> read said L2VPN is ptp while VPLS is ptmp.
>
> That's basically it. VPLS being multi-point means your PE routers are
> mac-learning, snd you can of course have a full range of issue like
> layer-2 loops (hence STP coming into play sometimes too). l2vpn is
> simpler.
>
> -Will