Juniper fec 128

Understanding the Role of FECs in MPLS

This configuration example has been tested using the software release listed and is assumed to work on all later releases. You can configure multihoming for any routing instance of type VPLS. This example also shows how to verify a multihomed VPLS network configuration. Include the multihoming statement to enable multihoming for the site. In this example, multihoming is configured on Routers PE1 and PE3, the provider edge routers that connect to the customer edge device CE1.

Assign distinct route distinguishers for multihomed PE routers. Configure the multihomed provider edge routers as primary and backup.

Only one of these interfaces is used to send and receive traffic for this site at a time. Either designate a primary interface or allow the router to select the interface to be used as the primary interface. The first operational interface in the set of configured interfaces is chosen to be the designated interface.

juniper fec 128

If this interface fails, the next interface in the list is selected to send and receive traffic for the site. To enable VPLS multihoming, you must include the following configuration statements in the provider edge router configuration:. After you complete the steps in the preceding procedure, the relevant section of the configuration on Device CE1 is:.

After you complete the steps in the preceding procedure, the relevant section of configuration on Device CE2 is:. The output shows that Router PE1 is connected to two sites ID: 10 and 20where site 10 is a remote site that is not designated, and site 20 is the remote site that is connected to Router PE1.

Help us improve your experience. Let us know what you think. Do you have time for a two-minute survey? Maybe Later.By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie PolicyPrivacy Policyand our Terms of Service. Network Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for network engineers. It only takes a minute to sign up. You can also use BGP for both.

Part of it comes down to what's supported, you might have PE's running older code that don't support FEC I definitely think you're usually going to select one and run with it, but there are all kinds of environments out there. That way if you are signaling with LDP in one area, and you want to introduce BGP in another - both can work together.

I've always used the FEC multi-home method described in the link with BGP auto-discovery and it works just fine - if I understand your question correctly. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.

Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Asked 6 years, 7 months ago. Active 5 years ago. Viewed 2k times. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding something? Did any answer help you? Alternatively, you could provide and accept your own answer. Active Oldest Votes. FEC multihoming was introduced in Junos 7. FEC multihoming was introduced in Junos Jordan Head Jordan Head 3, 1 1 gold badge 15 15 silver badges 32 32 bronze badges.

Benjamin Dale Benjamin Dale 8, 11 11 silver badges 41 41 bronze badges. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.

Understanding FEC 129 BGP Autodiscovery for VPWS

Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. The Overflow How many jobs can be done at home? Featured on Meta. Community and Moderator guidelines for escalating issues via new responseā€¦. Feedback on Q2 Community Roadmap.

Related 8. Hot Network Questions. Question feed.It still looks like the connection between the EX and EX is encrypted, but can someone clarify what that error means and why it is occuring so frequent? Go to Solution. What I read in internal cases are that these messages are generated due to additional debugging enabled in Junos starting from What is your code version.

Do you have some additional informations for me? Or why the log level is on warning and not on informational? Did you check if you had any flaps omn teh said interface and after that macsec went to a stuck time state?? QUE:- Or why the log level is on warning and not on informational? J:- This is a debug log and hence a warning, but as per cases reported and response from engineering the same can be listed as informational and can be ignored.

Junos logging wont explicitly log it as informational. I Think the "Last flapped" time is wrong. The interface was simply up, before the switch got his time from our ntp server. I flapped the Interface manually and this is the output now:. But still, the "Status: inuse Create time" is on after I disabled the interface and enabled it again:. So you are telling me, that this is common behaviour to throw like debug messages per minute? Is there something official, like a KB or anything?

Dont get me wrong, I simply want to be sure that everything is allright with our encrypted connection and our data is safe. The strange thing is simply, that on our EX everything is fine. The error messages is seen due to the EX chipset and the junos code. That is why you only see it on ex and not on ex These are generated due to the additional debugging capabilities added in the code and can be safely ignored.The is running code that supports BGP autodiscovery. I am trying to figure out the Juniper and Cisco equivilent commands.

I assume Juniper's route-distinguisher equils Cisco's rd and Juniper's vrf-target equals Cisco's route-target although the sintax is a little different, target for Juniper vs for Cisco. But what about Cisco's vpn id, vpls-id and router-id? We had also the same scenario where we wanted to connect the cisco and the MX through vpls. I have already configured Cisco to Cisco without an ES20 card and it works fine. I am on Let me change that last statement, we have an ES20 card as the core facing interface, but the devices connecting into the are regular cards.

Autodiscovery between Cisco and Juniper is currently not supported. Cisco uses fec for autodiscovery and Juniper uses only fec Hopefully this will be fixed soon. Thanks for the information my friend and for your prompt and kind answer I wonder how certain is this opinion? Have you personal experience with specific test? Is this a Juniper or cisco internal information? I'm looking forward for your opinion on this matter.

Is there still an interoperability problem with FEC implementation mismatch between these two vendors? I work for a fairly large SP, and we have a decent amount of pull with Juniper.

juniper fec 128

They have promised the fix, but I have heard nothing about it lately. But, we have also since gone with a juniper only solution. I did test Junipers ability to intemperate between the two.

It works pretty well, but it does have some limitations.Understanding Multisegment Pseudowire. Establishing a Multisegment Pseudowire Overview. Pseudowire Status Support for Multisegment Pseudowire. Supported and Unsupported Features. A pseudowire is a Layer 2 circuit or service that emulates the essential attributes of a telecommunications service, such as a T1 line, over an MPLS packet-switched network PSN.

Winter Sessions: Pruning a Juniper

The pseudowire is intended to provide only the minimum necessary functionality to emulate the wire with the required resiliency requirements for the given service definition. When a pseudowire originates and terminates on the edge of the same PSN, the pseudowire label is unchanged between the originating and terminating provider edge T-PE devices.

This is called a single-segment pseudowire SS-PW. In cases where it is impossible to establish a single pseudowire from a local to a remote PE, either because it is unfeasible or undesirable to establish a single control plane between the two PEs, a multisegment pseudowire MS-PW is used.

It is also known as switched pseudowire. MS-PWs can go across different regions or network domains. A region can be considered as an interior gateway protocol IGP area or a BGP autonomous system that belongs to the same or different administrative domain.

An MS-PW is declared to be up when all the single-segment pseudowires are up. This requires that the pseudowire endpoints be uniquely identified. In the case of a dynamically placed MS-PW, there is a requirement for the identifiers of attachment circuits to be globally unique, for the purposes of reachability and manageability of the pseudowire. This ensures that the same set of S-PEs are used in the reverse direction. This is set as the local fault code. The S-PE initiates the pseudowire status messages that indicate the pseudowire faults.

The SP-PE in the pseudowire notification message hints where the fault was originated. When a local fault is detected by the S-PE, a pseudowire status message is sent in both directions along the pseudowire. Since there are no attachment circuits on an S-PE, only the following status messages are relevant:.These statements signal the pushing and popping of the load-balancing label to the routing peers in the control plane.

Alternatively, you can configure the following statements at the [edit protocols l2circuit neighbor neighbor-id interface interface-name ] hierarchy level:.

All the Layer 2 circuits using a particular remote PE router designated for remote CE routers are listed under the neighbor statement. Each neighbor is identified by its IP address and is usually the end-point destination for the label-switched path LSP tunnel transporting the Layer 2 circuit.

If the incoming pseudowire packet is not marked with the flow label, the packet is dropped by the egress PE router. The ingress PE router inserts the flow label in the pseudowire packet, irrespective of the information exchanged in the signaling plane. If the egress PE router cannot handle the pseudowire packet marked with the flow label, the packet is dropped. Help us improve your experience.

Let us know what you think. Do you have time for a two-minute survey? Maybe Later.

juniper fec 128

Alternatively, you can configure the following statements at the [edit protocols l2circuit neighbor neighbor-id interface interface-name ] hierarchy level: flow-label-transmit-static to statically push the flow label on the pseudowire packets sent to the remote provider edge PE router.These Layer 2 VPNs provide an alternative to private networks that have been provisioned by means of dedicated leased lines or by means of Layer 2 virtual circuits that employ ATM or Frame Relay.

Kompella Layer 2 VPNs require the site-identifier and remote-site-id statements. VPWS creates pseudowires that emulate Layer 2 circuits.

Configuring the FAT Flow Label for FEC 128 VPWS Pseudowires for Load-Balancing MPLS Traffic

The tunneling mechanism in the core network typically is MPLS. Customer A wants to create a full mesh of point-to-point links between Westford and Bangalore. Customer B needs only a single point-to-point link between Westford and Sunnyvale. Local and remote site information for the interfaces identifies the cross-connect.

Local cross-connects are supported when the interfaces that are connected belong to two different sites configured in the same VPWS instance and on the same PE device. This arrangement reduces the configuration burden that is associated with statically configured Layer 2 circuits while still using LDP as the underlying signaling protocol.

Graceful Routing Engine switchover. With this option, there is no BGP autodiscovery. Nonstop active routing.

Strange MACSec Error

Theroutes that are present in the table are autodiscovery routes and pseudowire routes. Autodiscovery routes are used by BGP to allow autodiscovery of remote source access individual identifiers SAIIs the sources of the point-to-point pseudowires and PE device addresses. Autodiscovery routes are advertised when you configure the l2vpn auto-discovery-only address family.

The format of the autodiscovery routes is a combination of the route distinguisher and the SAII. For example: One autodiscovery route is advertised for each source attachment identifier SAI in the instance.

For example: NoCtrlWord The AGI field of the pseudowire route is always set to the l2vpn-id of the instance. A Layer 2 VPN installs a locally generated autodiscovery route into the instance. The extended community containing the l2vpn-id is attached when the route is added to the instance. Local autodiscovery routes installed by the Layer 2 VPN in the instance. On the receiving side, BGP accepts autodiscovery routes from remote peers and installs them in the local bgp.

The route is installed, and a secondary route is imported into the instance. These routes are identified by the instance-type l2vpn statement in the routing instance and the presence of the l2vpn-id statement.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *