Hi Ben not sure if you raised it before, but if you are looking at QinQ, and point-to-point is a viable solution, you should be able to do QinQ accross L2circuit .
In regards to the Switched network between PE & CE , why not use CFM to monitor the service end to end. but if you are planning to add more site , then it might become cumbersome though Regards On 27 March 2012 15:33, Ben Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > you hve a swtiched network > > 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 > -- Humair _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
