Hi Paul, Just curious. Does it seem to work well? What is the maximum amount of traffic going through the lt interface? Aren't you facing any limits upon that?
Thanks, /Evgeny ________________________________________ From: juniper-nsp [[email protected]] on behalf of Paul Stewart [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:05 AM To: Krasimir Avramski Cc: Juniper-Nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination Just wanted to say thanks - that worked great and it's now rolled into production with the customer.... Paul From: Krasimir Avramski <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 30 July, 2013 2:08 AM To: Paul Stewart <[email protected]> Cc: Juniper-Nsp <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination > Hi, > > On the core instance: set routing-instances xyz_IP_Transit protocols vpls > connectivity-type irb > > Krasi > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Paul Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks folksŠ >> >> I have an issue with implementing this and was hoping for a "sanity >> check". ;) >> >> On the "core" side of this implementation I am not taking the VPLS >> instance to any form of a physical interface - I only have an IRB >> interface and the VPLS path will not come up. I'm assuming the VPLS path >> won't establish because of lack of a physical interface or is it just >> something else that I've misconfigured? >> >> Core Router (MX480): >> >> paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> show configuration routing-instances >> xyz_IP_Transit { >> instance-type vpls; >> vlan-id 100; >> routing-interface irb.100; >> route-distinguisher xx.xx.xx.xx:100; >> vrf-target target:11666:9100; >> protocols { >> vpls { >> site-range 20; >> no-tunnel-services; >> site Core { >> site-identifier 2; >> } >> } >> } >> } >> >> CPE Facing Router (MX80): >> >> >> [email protected]> show configuration routing-instances >> xyz_IP_Transit { >> instance-type vpls; >> vlan-id 100; >> interface ge-1/1/0.100; >> route-distinguisher xx.xx.xx.xx:100; >> vrf-target target:11666:9100; >> protocols { >> vpls { >> site-range 20; >> no-tunnel-services; >> site customer { >> site-identifier 1; >> } >> } >> } >> } >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul >> >> >> On 2013-07-26 2:08 PM, "Tarko Tikan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >hey, >>> > >>>> >> Alternatively use routed VPLS on the core box if it is also an MX and a >>>> >> standard VPLS instance on the edge: >>>> >> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.2/topics/task/configuratio >>>> >> n/vpls-irb-solutions.html >>> > >>> >+1 for this. Not a hack, we have been using this for a while now and got >>> >all major bugs fixed over time. In production for hundreds of thousands >>> >of customers. >>> > >>> >Don't use lt- interfaces if you don't have to. >>> > >>>> >> Or if you are game then in the next release you should get "psX" >>>> >> interfaces on the MX for direct PWHT although it will still be bound to >>>> >> an lt- interface underneath. Documentation already exists for this for >>>> >> 13.1. >>> > >>> >+1 for this as well. This will supposedly support all the features >>> >physical ports do so you can do HQoS etc. >>> > >>> >-- >>> >tarko >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> >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 > _______________________________________________ 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
