L2VPN Cisco & Juniper : VPLS OK // XCO NOK

[Jerems]

Hi Dear community,

Can you please comment this design and tell me what could be wrong as the XCO prevent me from pinging each end devices in vlan 19.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind Regards,

Jerems

[Harold Ritter]

Hi @Jerems ,

Please try the following on the Cisco PE:

no l2vpn connect context xconnect-12119

no interface vlan119

interface gi0/1/0

no switchport

int gi0/1/0.19

encapsulation dot1q 19

xconnect 10.0.0.1 12119 encapsulation mpls

Regards,

[Jerems]

Hi Harold,

Glad to read from you ! The four Gi0/1/x are actually switchports and can not behave as L3 ports.

#########(config-if)#no switchport ?
access Set access mode characteristics of the interface
autostate Include or exclude this port from vlan link up calculation
host Set port host
mode Set trunking mode of the interface
nonegotiate Device will not engage in negotiation protocol on this interface
port-security Security related command
priority Set appliance 802.1p priority
protected Configure an interface to be a protected port
trunk Set trunking characteristics of the interface
voice Voice appliance attributes

Thank you for your kind help !

[Harold Ritter]

Hi @Jerems ,

I think the issue is using the SVI in this context is not supported.

Can you try the following instead:

l2vpn xconnect context xconnect-12119

member gi0/1/0 service-instance 19

member pseudowire12119

!

interface gi0/1/0

service instance 19 ethernet

encapsulation dot1q 19

Regards,

[Jerems]

Hi,

@Harold Ritter, i will give it a try but i believe that it is not an option to instantiate an evc on this kind of interface on a 1113.

Thanks in advance,

Jerems

[Jerems]

@Harold Ritter 

############(config)#int gi0/1/0
############(config-if)#service ?
% Unrecognized command
############(config-if)#service?
service-insertion  service-policy

I can confirm on such embbeded switch in an ISR1113 it doesn't work.

Thanks in advance,

Jerems

[Harold Ritter · Accepted solution]

Hi @Jerems ,

It is not possible on the LAN ports, but as I can see in the diagram, you use the WAN port for VPLS and you are able to apply a service instance. Is it possible to use the WAN port as well in the xconnect scenario?

Regards, 

[Jerems]

Hi @Harold Ritter 

I will, thank you. In the meantime if you think that we can find somewhere a documentation related to which kind of interface supports EVC feature.

Thanks in advance,

Jerems

[MHM Cisco World]

xco cisco

you use 
l2vpn xconnect 
then use use 
member pesudo 12119 <<- use direct juniper or config psudo interface as below

interface Pseudowire 12119
 encapsulation mpls
 neighbor x.x.x.x 12119

[Jerems]

HI @MHM Cisco World ,

I guess this would prevent me from bringing up the vc which is actually not the case as it is up :

sh mpls l2transport vc 12119 detail
Local interface: Vl19 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 19 up
  Destination address: 10.0.0.1, VC ID: 12119, VC status: up
    Output interface: Gi0/0/0, imposed label stack {299888 300032}
    Preferred path: not configured  
    Default path: active
    Next hop: 192.168.12.49
  Create time: 00:00:10, last status change time: 00:00:10
    Last label FSM state change time: 00:00:10
  Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 10.0.0.1:0 up
    Targeted Hello: 10.0.0.21(LDP Id) -> 10.0.0.1, LDP is UP
    Graceful restart: not configured and not enabled
    Non stop routing: not configured and not enabled
    Status TLV support (local/remote)   : enabled/not supported
      LDP route watch                   : enabled
      Label/status state machine        : established, LruRru
      Last local dataplane   status rcvd: No fault
      Last BFD dataplane     status rcvd: Not sent
      Last BFD peer monitor  status rcvd: No fault
      Last local AC  circuit status rcvd: No fault
      Last local AC  circuit status sent: No fault
      Last local PW i/f circ status rcvd: No fault
      Last local LDP TLV     status sent: No fault
      Last remote LDP TLV    status rcvd: Not sent
      Last remote LDP ADJ    status rcvd: No fault
    MPLS VC labels: local 40, remote 300032 
    Group ID: local 16, remote 0
    MTU: local 1500, remote 1500
    Remote interface description: 
    Remote VLAN id: 19
  Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
  Control Word: Off (configured: autosense)
  SSO Descriptor: 10.0.0.1/12119, local label: 40
  Dataplane:
    SSM segment/switch IDs: 16460/4170 (used), PWID: 4
  VC statistics:
    transit packet totals: receive 0, send 0
    transit byte totals:   receive 0, send 0
    transit packet drops:  receive 0, seq error 0, send 0

In the diagram i have put all the requested configurations for each node.

Thanks in advance for your great help,

Jerems

[MHM Cisco World]

did you config pseudo interface 12119 ? 

[Jerems]

Thank you @MHM Cisco World for reverting to me so quickly. Actuellement, i did configure the pseudowire interface, sorry for omitting it in my screenshot.

Thanks in advance,

Jerems

[Jerems]

In the meantime i have put a correct screenshot of the diagram.

[Jerems · Accepted solution]

As a conclusion for this topic i would say that, so as to have a xconnect/l2circuit setup (LDP based, Martini-Draft) that works fine between a Cisco IOS-XE device and a Juniper device, you need to build a Type 5 pseudowire (interworking ethernet) and not a type 4 (interworking vlan).

As far as i could find on Cisco website and documentation the Type 4 pseudowire was unsupported from version IOS-XE 3S as you can see in the screenshot below even if you can bring it up

In the following screenshot, even if it appears to be fine because it shows everything up,

my two hosts at each side of the circuit could not ping each other.

However This feature was still supported in IOS-XE 2 (for sure this would need to be tested):

Nevertheless, i can confirm that you can also bring up a xconnect on ISR devices using a SVI interface in addition to one of the L2 ports available on the embedded switches.

Moreover i could also bring up a type 4 VC using a legacy IOS device (ISR 89x Series)

Hope this topic helps anyone of you.

Regards,

Jerems

[MHM Cisco World]

Thanks a lot for update us.

Really appreciate 

Have a nice summer 

MHM