[j-nsp] vpls question

[james list]

Well indeed OSPF is running also with customer peer in the other side of
the MPLS cloud (CE2) and PE3/4 (still other side)... and it's due by
customer requested design to have VPLS and OSPF on the PEs...

So I understand that putting "protocols vpls connectivity-type irb" do not
solve...

I'm wondering why and the expected behaviour...

cheers
James

2015-04-27 0:36 GMT+02:00 Ben Dale <bdale at comlinx.com.au>:

> Hi James,
>
> On 27 Apr 2015, at 5:31 am, james list <jameslist72 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi amarjeet
> > Because if PE1 fails there is faster convergence to PE2 due to neighbor
> > already established.
> >
>
> Is there a reason you wouldn't consider using an L3VPN instead of a VPLS?
> It seems odd to me that you would be using L3 adjacencies to an L2 service.
>
> If it really is L2 fail-over you are chasing, then Amarjeet is correct -
> multihoming and site-preference are designed for exactly this purpose.
>
> If you customer requires L3 connectivity across your VPLS, you would be
> better off carrying their OSPF across the VPLS and let their CEs form
> adjacencies with each other - that way, you can take care of L2 fail-over,
> and the customer is responsible for L3.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> > Cheers
> > James
> > Il 24/apr/2015 13:23, "james list" <jameslist72 at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >> I have a VPLS multi-homed environment with two MX routers (PE1 and PE2)
> >> connected to a single ethernet switch (CE1). I have PE1 configured with
> >> site-preference as "primary" and PE2 as "backup".
> >>
> >>
> >> Behind the CE1 there is a router running OSPF with both MX (on irb
> >> interface).
> >>
> >>
> >> My goal is to have:
> >>
> >> 1)    Multihoming to prevent loops
> >>
> >> 2)    Let the router run two OSPF neighbor with both PE and not just one
> >> with the primary PE.
> >>
> >> I’m wondering if using:
> >>
> >>
> >> set routing-instances XXXX protocols vpls connectivity-type irb
> >>
> >>
> >> instead of the default (connectivity-type ce) could give me the option
> to
> >> reach my goal number 2) and if I can introduce any drawback.
> >>
> >>
> >> Or if there is another solution keeping 1).
> >>
> >>
> >> I don’t have a lab to test…
> >>
> >>
> >> Any help/feedback is really appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>