You are totally right, thank you very much.
Regards,
On 10/31/2013 09:50 PM, Harry Reynolds wrote:
Perhaps when you use set, which strips the existing comm. set as mentioned, this includes
the "Layer2 Info Extended Community" as per rfc 4761, which is needed to signal
bgp based vpls.
Seems you go from this:
Communities: target:10:10 Layer2-info: encaps: VPLS, control
flags:[0x0] , mtu: 0, site preference: 100
To this:
Communities: target:10:10
I belive that would explain why add, which leaves the existing set intact, is
working.
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: Mihai [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:19 PM
To: Harry Reynolds
Cc: EXT - [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] "community set" vs "community add"
I agree, but I don't think you understand what I am trying to do.
Let's take it step by step:
- z advertises l2vpn route to RR q
z> show route advertising-protocol bgp 20.20.20.3 detail
mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown, 0
hidden)
* 20:20:2:1/96 (1 entry, 1 announced)
BGP group ibgp type Internal
Route Distinguisher: 20:20
Label-base: 800000, range: 8
Nexthop: Self
Flags: Nexthop Change
Localpref: 100
AS path: [65550] I
Communities: target:20:20 Layer2-info: encaps: VPLS, control flags:[0x0]
, mtu: 0, site preference: 100
- the RR should replace the community "target:20:20" advertised by z with
"target:10:10" and the advertise the prefix to x (RR client)
q# run show route table bgp.l2vpn.0 detail
bgp.l2vpn.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
10:10:1:1/96 (1 entry, 1 announced)
*BGP Preference: 170/-101
Route Distinguisher: 10:10
Next hop type: Indirect
Address: 0x26ec814
Next-hop reference count: 1
Source: 20.20.20.1
Protocol next hop: 20.20.20.1
Indirect next hop: 2 no-forward INH Session ID: 0x0
State: <Active Int Ext>
Local AS: 65550 Peer AS: 65550
Age: 3:13:27 Metric2: 1
Validation State: unverified
Task: BGP_65550.20.20.20.1+58349
Announcement bits (1): 0-BGP_RT_Background
AS path: I
Communities: target:10:10 Layer2-info: encaps: VPLS, control
flags:[0x0] , mtu: 0, site preference: 100
Accepted
Label-base: 800000, range: 8
Localpref: 100
Router ID: 20.20.20.1
- x accepts the l2vpn route from RR and place it in the vrf-l2vpn table
x> show route receive-protocol bgp 20.20.20.3 table mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0
detail
mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown, 0
hidden)
* 20:20:2:1/96 (1 entry, 0 announced)
Import Accepted
Route Distinguisher: 20:20
Label-base: 800000, range: 8, status-vector: 0x0
Nexthop: 20.20.20.2
Localpref: 100
AS path: I (Originator)
Cluster list: 0.0.0.1
Originator ID: 20.20.20.2
Communities: target:10:10
Now, x should have a vpls connection up,but this is not the case when
the policy used on RR for changing the community target:20:20 to
target:10:10 is this:
q# show policy-statement from-z
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-z;
}
then {
community set vpls-x;
accept;
}
}
q# top show protocols bgp
group ibgp {
type internal;
local-address 20.20.20.3;
family l2vpn {
signaling;
}
cluster 0.0.0.1;
neighbor 20.20.20.1;
neighbor 20.20.20.2 {
import from-z;
export to-z;
}
}
x> show vpls connections
Legend for interface status
Up -- operational
Dn -- down
Instance: mihai-vpls
Local site: a (1)
No connections found.
If I change the policy to:
q# show policy-statement from-z
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-z;
}
then {
community delete vpls-z;
community add vpls-x;
accept;
}
}
then vpls comes up:
Legend for interface status
Up -- operational
Dn -- down
Instance: mihai-vpls
Local site: a (1)
connection-site Type St Time last up # Up trans
2 rmt Up Oct 31 21:23:39 2013 1
Remote PE: 20.20.20.2, Negotiated control-word: No
Incoming label: 800001, Outgoing label: 800000
Local interface: vt-1/0/10.235929856, Status: Up, Encapsulation: VPLS
Description: Intf - vpls mihai-vpls local site 1 remote site 2
On 10/31/2013 08:58 PM, Harry Reynolds wrote:
If memory serves, the add adds to what is there, while set replaces what was
there with what you are now adding. One appends, the other replaces, so not the
same.
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Mihai
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:53 AM
To: EXT - [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] "community set" vs "community add"
Aren't these 2 policies the same thing?
policy-statement from-z {
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-z;
}
then {
community delete vpls-z;
community add vpls-x;
accept;
}
}
}
policy-statement from-z {
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-z;
}
then {
community set vpls-x;
accept;
}
}
}
On 10/31/2013 08:46 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
set replaces all values with just the one specified.
add adds the specified community to the already existing list
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Mihai <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello,
Using a simple topology with 2 PE's and one RR I am trying to
establish a vpls connection between PE's using different route-targets.
I am using the RR to rewrite the communities, but using "community
set" instead of "community add" results in a "No connections found"
message on both PE's.
x and z are PE's, q is RR
x> show configuration routing-instances mihai-vpls
instance-type vpls;
vlan-id 880;
interface ge-1/1/6.880;
route-distinguisher 10:10;
vrf-target target:10:10;
protocols {
vpls {
site a {
site-identifier 1;
}
}
}
z> show configuration routing-instances mihai-vpls
instance-type vpls;
vlan-id 880;
interface ge-1/1/7.980;
route-distinguisher 20:20;
vrf-target target:20:20;
protocols {
vpls {
site b {
site-identifier 2;
}
}
}
q# show policy-options
policy-statement from-z {
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-z;
}
then {
community set vpls-x;
accept;
}
}
}
policy-statement to-z {
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-x;
}
then {
community set vpls-z;
accept;
}
}
}
community vpls-x members target:10:10;
community vpls-z members target:20:20;
------------------------------__------------------------------__----
x> show vpls connections
Layer-2 VPN connections:
Legend for connection status (St)
EI -- encapsulation invalid NC -- interface encapsulation not
CCC/TCC/VPLS
EM -- encapsulation mismatch WE -- interface and instance encaps
not same
VC-Dn -- Virtual circuit down NP -- interface hardware not present
CM -- control-word mismatch -> -- only outbound connection is up
CN -- circuit not provisioned <- -- only inbound connection is up
OR -- out of range Up -- operational
OL -- no outgoing label Dn -- down
LD -- local site signaled down CF -- call admission control failure
RD -- remote site signaled down SC -- local and remote site ID
collision
LN -- local site not designated LM -- local site ID not minimum
designated
RN -- remote site not designated RM -- remote site ID not minimum
designated
XX -- unknown connection status IL -- no incoming label
MM -- MTU mismatch MI -- Mesh-Group ID not available
BK -- Backup connection ST -- Standby connection
PF -- Profile parse failure PB -- Profile busy
RS -- remote site standby SN -- Static Neighbor
LB -- Local site not best-site RB -- Remote site not best-site
VM -- VLAN ID mismatch
Legend for interface status
Up -- operational
Dn -- down
Instance: mihai-vpls
Local site: a (1)
No connections found.
x> show route table mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0 detail
mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown,
0 hidden)
10:10:1:1/96 (1 entry, 1 announced)
*L2VPN Preference: 170/-101
Next hop type: Indirect
Address: 0x26d8270
Next-hop reference count: 2
Protocol next hop: (null)
Indirect next hop: 0 - INH Session ID: 0x0
State: <Active Int Ext>
Age: 22:36 Metric2: 1
Validation State: unverified
Task: mihai-vpls-l2vpn
Announcement bits (1): 1-BGP_RT_Background
AS path: I
Communities: Layer2-info: encaps: VPLS, control
flags:[0x0] , mtu: 0, site preference: 100
Label-base: 800000, range: 8, status-vector: 0x7F
20:20:2:1/96 (1 entry, 0 announced)
*BGP Preference: 170/-101
Route Distinguisher: 20:20
Next hop type: Indirect
Address: 0x26d8990
Next-hop reference count: 2
Source: 20.20.20.3
Protocol next hop: 20.20.20.2
Indirect next hop: 2 no-forward INH Session ID: 0x0
State: <Secondary Active Int Ext>
Local AS: 65550 Peer AS: 65550
Age: 3:10 Metric2: 1
Validation State: unverified
Task: BGP_65550.20.20.20.3+179
AS path: I (Originator)
Cluster list: 0.0.0.1
Originator ID: 20.20.20.2
Communities: target:10:10
Import Accepted
Label-base: 800000, range: 8, status-vector: 0x0
Localpref: 100
Router ID: 20.20.20.3
Primary Routing Table bgp.l2vpn.0
z> show route table mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0 detail
mihai-vpls.l2vpn.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown,
0 hidden)
10:10:1:1/96 (1 entry, 0 announced)
*BGP Preference: 170/-101
Route Distinguisher: 10:10
Next hop type: Indirect
Address: 0x26d8990
Next-hop reference count: 2
Source: 20.20.20.3
Protocol next hop: 20.20.20.1
Indirect next hop: 2 no-forward INH Session ID: 0x0
State: <Secondary Active Int Ext>
Local AS: 65550 Peer AS: 65550
Age: 2:55 Metric2: 1
Validation State: unverified
Task: BGP_65550.20.20.20.3+62459
AS path: I (Originator)
Cluster list: 0.0.0.1
Originator ID: 20.20.20.1
Communities: target:20:20
Import Accepted
Label-base: 800000, range: 8
Localpref: 100
Router ID: 20.20.20.3
Primary Routing Table bgp.l2vpn.0
20:20:2:1/96 (1 entry, 1 announced)
*L2VPN Preference: 170/-101
Next hop type: Indirect
Address: 0x26d8270
Next-hop reference count: 2
Protocol next hop: (null)
Indirect next hop: 0 - INH Session ID: 0x0
State: <Active Int Ext>
Age: 22:21 Metric2: 1
Validation State: unverified
Task: mihai-vpls-l2vpn
Announcement bits (1): 1-BGP_RT_Background
AS path: I
Communities: Layer2-info: encaps: VPLS, control
flags:[0x0] , mtu: 0, site preference: 100
Label-base: 800000, range: 8, status-vector: 0xBF
-----------------------------
If I change the policies on RR then vpls comes up:
q# show policy-options
policy-statement from-z {
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-z;
}
then {
community delete vpls-z;
community add vpls-x;
accept;
}
}
}
policy-statement to-z {
term 10 {
from {
protocol bgp;
community vpls-x;
}
then {
community delete vpls-x;
community add vpls-z;
accept;
}
}
}
community vpls-x members target:10:10;
community vpls-z members target:20:20;
x> show vpls connections | find connection-site
connection-site Type St Time last up #
Up trans
2 rmt Up Oct 31 18:22:35 2013
1
Remote PE: 20.20.20.2, Negotiated control-word: No
Incoming label: 800001, Outgoing label: 800000
Local interface: vt-1/1/10.235929600, Status: Up,
Encapsulation: VPLS
Description: Intf - vpls mihai-vpls local site 1 remote
site 2
I can't understand what's the problem here.
Regards,
Mihai
_________________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/__mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp>
--
Chris Jones
JNCIE-ENT #272
CCIE# 25655 (R&S)
_______________________________________________
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
