Routing
Routing

Use of l2vpn-id in a VPLS using BGP for autodiscovery

‎01-09-2020 01:02 AM

Hi.

 

Here is the routing instance of a PE configured for using BGP for autodiscovery and LDP for setting up pseudowires. All PEs in the same VPLS must use the same l2vpn-id and the same vrf-target. If the target already identifies the VPLS, why do we need the l2vpn-id?

 

routing-instances {

    TEST {

        instance-type vpls;

        interface xe-1/1/0.13443;

        route-distinguisher 65509:200098;

        l2vpn-id l2vpn-id:65509:200097;

        vrf-target target:65509:10238;

        protocols {

            vpls {

                control-word;

                mac-table-size {

                    4000;

                }

                no-tunnel-services;

                mtu 9000;

                flow-label-transmit;

                flow-label-receive;

            }

        }

    }

}

 

Many thanks,

Deepak

4 REPLIES 4
Highlighted
Routing

Re: Use of l2vpn-id in a VPLS using BGP for autodiscovery

‎01-09-2020 04:51 AM

Hello,

 

LDP FEC 129 (Generalized PWid FEC Element) contains VPLS-ID, a.k.a Attachment Group Identifier (AGI), see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4762#page-8

Therefore, to establish LDP pseudowire mesh after BGP autodiscovery of PEs, a VPLS-ID is required which is encoded in BGP Extended Community "L2VPN identifier", see RFC 6074.

This is insurance, if You will, that LDP pseudowire will be established to the same router that signaled a particular BGP VPLS-ID.

HTH

Thx

Alex

_____________________________________________________________________

Please ask Your Juniper account team about Juniper Professional Services offerings.
Juniper PS can design, test & build the network/part of the network as per Your requirements

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Accept as Solution = cool !
Accept as Solution+Kudo = You are a Star !
Highlighted
Routing

Re: Use of l2vpn-id in a VPLS using BGP for autodiscovery

‎01-09-2020 05:10 AM

Thanks aarseniev.

 

You've mentioned:

 a VPLS-ID is required which is encoded in BGP Extended Community "L2VPN identifier"

 

My question is that since we already have a vrf-target which identifies the VPLS, why not use that and do away with configuring an l2vpn ID? Thus we'd have the following:

A VPLS-ID is required which is encoded in BGP Extended Community "VRF Target"

 

I'm wondering about the reason why the design thinks the L2VPN ID is necessary even though we have a vrf target which already identifies the VPLS

 

Regards,

Deepak

 

 

 

Highlighted
Routing
Solution
Accepted by topic author djadhav
‎01-09-2020 06:11 AM

Re: Use of l2vpn-id in a VPLS using BGP for autodiscovery

‎01-09-2020 06:07 AM

Hello,

It is indeed possible but it breaks more complex VPLS architectures such as VPLS hub-n-spoke which uses different RTs but have to have same VPLS-ID.

Please see RFC 6074 section 3.2.2.1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6074#section-3.2.2.1

 

   If a particular VPLS is meant to be a single fully connected LAN, all
   its VSIs will have the same RT, in which case the RT could be (though
   it need not be) an encoding of the VPN-id.  A VSI can be placed in
   multiple VPLSes by assigning it multiple RTs.

   Note that hierarchical VPLS can be set up by assigning multiple RTs
   to some of the VSIs; the RT mechanism allows one to have complete
   control over the pseudowire overlay that constitutes the VPLS
   topology.

 

HTH

Thx

Alex

 

_____________________________________________________________________

Please ask Your Juniper account team about Juniper Professional Services offerings.
Juniper PS can design, test & build the network/part of the network as per Your requirements

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Accept as Solution = cool !
Accept as Solution+Kudo = You are a Star !
Highlighted
Routing

Re: Use of l2vpn-id in a VPLS using BGP for autodiscovery

‎01-09-2020 06:11 AM
Hi Alex. That makes sense. Thanks!
Feedback