Well indeed OSPF is running also with customer peer in the other side of the MPLS cloud (CE2) and PE3/4 (still other side)... and it's due by customer requested design to have VPLS and OSPF on the PEs...
So I understand that putting "protocols vpls connectivity-type irb" do not solve... I'm wondering why and the expected behaviour... cheers James 2015-04-27 0:36 GMT+02:00 Ben Dale <[email protected]>: > Hi James, > > On 27 Apr 2015, at 5:31 am, james list <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi amarjeet > > Because if PE1 fails there is faster convergence to PE2 due to neighbor > > already established. > > > > Is there a reason you wouldn't consider using an L3VPN instead of a VPLS? > It seems odd to me that you would be using L3 adjacencies to an L2 service. > > If it really is L2 fail-over you are chasing, then Amarjeet is correct - > multihoming and site-preference are designed for exactly this purpose. > > If you customer requires L3 connectivity across your VPLS, you would be > better off carrying their OSPF across the VPLS and let their CEs form > adjacencies with each other - that way, you can take care of L2 fail-over, > and the customer is responsible for L3. > > Cheers, > > Ben > > > > > Cheers > > James > > Il 24/apr/2015 13:23, "james list" <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > >> I have a VPLS multi-homed environment with two MX routers (PE1 and PE2) > >> connected to a single ethernet switch (CE1). I have PE1 configured with > >> site-preference as "primary" and PE2 as "backup". > >> > >> > >> Behind the CE1 there is a router running OSPF with both MX (on irb > >> interface). > >> > >> > >> My goal is to have: > >> > >> 1) Multihoming to prevent loops > >> > >> 2) Let the router run two OSPF neighbor with both PE and not just one > >> with the primary PE. > >> > >> I’m wondering if using: > >> > >> > >> set routing-instances XXXX protocols vpls connectivity-type irb > >> > >> > >> instead of the default (connectivity-type ce) could give me the option > to > >> reach my goal number 2) and if I can introduce any drawback. > >> > >> > >> Or if there is another solution keeping 1). > >> > >> > >> I don’t have a lab to test… > >> > >> > >> Any help/feedback is really appreciated. > >> > >> > >> Greetings > >> > >> James > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
