How about creating two psudowires , PE1- PE3 and PE2-PE4 ? This will give you two logical point to point connections between SW1 and SW2 and at the same time take care of device (PE) failure . STP,by default, will take care of the redundancy. You may also want to use UDLD and/or PAGP or LACP to provide end to end link status.
-Rakesh. On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I would suggest that you treat these 2 parallel PW's as 2 separate L2 > connections. > Each connection would be handed over to the end customer separately, and > the customer can run STP end to end between their CE's. > This way the failover between PW1 and PW2 would be based on CE-to-CE STP > > Alternatively, if the customer is using L3 CE's, then its just 2 parallel > L3 links... > > Arie > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mateusz B?aszczyk > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 21:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2VPN Pseudowire Redundancy > > you would have to land these xconnects on VPLS instance. > so add 4 more devices that would be your N-PEs with VPLS instance and your > current PEs would become U-PEs connected to the rest of the MPLS cloud with > 1 xconnect to the "active" N-PE and backup xconnect to the "standby" N-PE. > > But I am not sure it is possible on 7206. > > > > -- > -mat > > > 2008/11/2 Gary T. Giesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm not sure if this is possible, but maybe someone can give me some > > input on how to best achieve this. > > > > I'm labbing EoMPLS using 4x 7206 VXR. I'd like to create a fully > > redundant pseudowire (from the provider persective). > > > > The idea is to put two PE routers at each end of the pseudowire (with > > a common VLAN at each end shared through a switch), so that I can > > fully lose a PE router and the VC still stays up. > > > > The topology looks like this: > > > > [PE1] [PE3] > > CE1 --- [SW1] ---< > [MPLS CLOUD] < >--- [SW2] --- CE2 > > [PE2] [PE4] > > > > I've tried a number of ways using xconnect-peers and backup peers (per > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/fspseudo.html > > ), and it works great when I only have redundancy on one end, but as > > soon as I add the 4th PE, nothing works anymore. > > > > When I add the 4th PE router, PE1 forms a VC with PE3, and PE2 forms a > > VC with PE4, when in reality I should only ever have one VC formed at > > any given time, and PE2 should never form a VC with PE4 until PE1 or > > PE3 goes down. > > > > Does anyone have any suggested configurations? > > > > Regards, > > > > GG > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
