Tagging isn't supported with the encapsulation you're using. That was the only thing I found wrong with your config. Is yourT-LDP session ok? Do you have a lab router you can use to try this on? What code are you running? If a vanilla VPLS config weren't working in a particular version of JunOS that should be in release notes somewhere. Did they verify your T-LDP and mention your encapsulation? Not that JTAC has ever come up with the wrong answer for me, mind you.
2012/3/27 Ben Boyd <[email protected]> > The CE's can tag or not tag, they want freedom to do whatever they wish. > > There is no BGP. It's all LDP signaled. That's why an L2VPN isn't > possible and VPLS is our only way. > > > I'm trying to accomplish Q-in-Q or more exactly "possiblyQ-in-Q". > > JTAC thinks this is a bug as the Juniper is sending STP traffic and > tagging correctly, but it isn't decapsulating the STP traffic coming back. > > > > ----------------------------------- > Ben Boyd > [email protected] > http://about.me/benboyd > > > > > On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Keegan Holley wrote: > > Try changing your encapsulation to flexible ethernet services. It's been > a while since I set this up from scratch, but I've never seen a vpls > neighbor defined only site-id's and site ranges. That may not be your > problem though. Are your CE's tagging? encap vpls only supports untagged > packets from the CE. vlan-vpls or flexible is required to pass dot1q > tags. You should think about doing q-in-q to isolate your topology from > the customers. What does your BGP look like? Both L2VPN and VPLS are > actually BGP signalled so your (MP)BGP config is important too. > > > > > 2012/3/22 Ben Boyd <[email protected]> > >> A straight l2 circuit wouldn't work because of a switched-network between >> a PE and the CE. >> >> L2VPN wouldn't work because BGP isn't used as MPLS transport mechanism. >> >> >> Updated Setup: >> >> CE switch #1 (untagged/tagged) -------- MX240 (11.4R1.14) -------- P >> router -------- Cisco PE (tagged) -------- Switched Network -------- CE >> switch #2 (untagged/tagged) >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------- >> Ben Boyd >> [email protected] >> http://about.me/benboyd >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Ben Boyd wrote: >> >> > >> > All, >> > >> > I'm running into VPLS frustrations in an MX. I'd like to create a VPLS >> instance in which a customer can plug in a device on any port in our >> network and we'll pass the traffic no matter what type of traffic it is >> (we're just a wire). For example, they can plug in a switch/router where >> the interface is tagging traffic or not tagging traffic. >> > >> > This particular example is one CE-switch to another CE-Switch, but >> we'll eventually add several additional switches and routers in the same >> VPLS instance. >> > >> > Right now, I am seeing BPDU's received from one CE switch to another CE >> switch, but I'm not seeing any coming back. >> > >> > I'm also not able to ping from CE to CE on any VLAN. >> > >> > Here is the Setup: >> > >> > CE switch #1 (untagged/tagged) -------- MX240 (11.4R1.14) -------- P >> router -------- Cisco PE -------- CE switch #2 (untagged/tagged) >> > >> > CE switch #2 is receiving BPDUs from CE switch #1, however CE switch #1 >> isn't receiving BPDU's from CE switch #2 >> > >> > >> > Relevant MX240 config: >> > admin@interop-MX240# show interfaces ge-2/1/0 >> > mtu 9192; >> > encapsulation ethernet-vpls; >> > unit 0 { >> > family vpls; >> > } >> > >> > >> > admin@interop-MX240# show routing-instances VPLS2001 >> > instance-type vpls; >> > vlan-id all; >> > interface ge-2/1/0.0; >> > protocols { >> > vpls { >> > no-tunnel-services; >> > vpls-id 100; >> > mtu 9216; >> > neighbor 172.16.0.11; >> > } >> > } >> > >> > admin@interop-MX240# show protocols layer2-control >> > mac-rewrite { >> > interface ge-2/1/0 { >> > protocol { >> > stp; >> > vtp; >> > cdp; >> > } >> > } >> > } >> > >> > The VPLS VC is up from MX240 to Cisco PE. >> > >> > admin@interop-MX240# run show vpls connections >> > Instance: VPLS2001 >> > VPLS-id: 100 >> > Neighbor Type St Time last up # Up >> trans >> > 172.16.0.11(vpls-id 100) rmt Up Mar 22 11:13:33 2012 >> 1 >> > Remote PE: 172.16.0.11, Negotiated control-word: No >> > Incoming label: 262151, Outgoing label: 119 >> > Negotiated PW status TLV: No >> > Local interface: lsi.1052423, Status: Up, Encapsulation: ETHERNET >> > Description: Intf - vpls VPLS2001 neighbor 172.16.0.11 vpls-id >> 100 >> > >> > >> > Cisco_PE#show mpls l2transport vc >> > >> > Local intf Local circuit Dest address VC ID >> Status >> > ------------- -------------------------- --------------- ---------- >> ---------- >> > VFI vpls1 VFI 172.16.0.12 100 UP >> > >> > >> > If anyone has some config advice, i'm open to it! >> > >> > >> > >> > ----------------------------------- >> > Ben Boyd >> > [email protected] >> > http://about.me/benboyd >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
