L2VPN between ASR9000 and ME3800x

Answered Question
Jan 27th, 2012

Hi,

I'm trying to set up a L2VPN(Vlan Mode) between a trunk port on an ASR9000, and an ME3800x.

The ASR is set up with an EFP:

interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/19.912 l2transport
encapsulation dot1q 912
rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
mtu 1618
!

l2vpn
pw-class VlanMode
encapsulation mpls
transport-mode vlan

!

  xconnect group orkide

  !

    p2p OrkideSurnadal
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/19.912
    neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.75 pw-id 912
     pw-class VlanMode
!

On the other side I have terminated the xconnect on an ME3800x:

interface Vlan912
   mtu 1600
   no ip address
   xconnect xxx.xxx.xxx.82 912 encapsulation mpls
end

The VC is UP:

Local intf     Local circuit              Dest address    VC ID      Status

-------------  -------------------------- --------------- ---------- ----------

Vl912          Eth VLAN 912               xxx.xxx.xxx.82    912        UP

Is this the correct way to to do this?

I can't get this to work like it should. If I should do this with switches, I would just configure a vlan from end-to-end.

Thanks in advance,

Jan Ove Greger

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by akiritch about 2 years 2 months ago

Hi Jan,

I am not sure of ME3800 configuration and its VLAN handling. Do you know if it sends tagged or non-tagged packets to the ASR9k?

With the current configuration, ASR9k removes the VLAN tag before sending it to the ME end. Hence, the expectation that the ME would push the VLAN back sending the traffic to the end customer and the ME38 to remove the VLAN tag sending the traffic to ASR9k.

We do we get something over the PW

!

packets: received 134, sent 12

bytes: received 9112, sent 816

!

I suspect there is some mismatch in VLAN handling between the devices and hence end to end VLAN mismatch.

May you try to remove rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric from the ASR9k? this way the ASR9k would send tagged packets towards the ME switch. That is in order to verify if the ME sends tagged packets back to us too.

Regards,

/A

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Average Rating: 5 (4 ratings)
akiritch Fri, 01/27/2012 - 13:19

Hello Jan,

You said “If I should do this with switches, I would just configure a vlan from end-to-end.” I may didn’t get it correctly. Are these switches directly connected to each other or is there MPLS network between them? Just want to be sure we really need L2VPN here.

For the configuration I suggest to use VC5 mode. (ASR uses it by default, so just remove the pw-class).

!

l2vpn

!

xconnect group orkide

!

  p2p OrkideSurnadal

   interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/19.912

   neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.75 pw-id 912

!

Collect “sh l2vpn xconnect detail” from ASR  after the reconfiguration.

Regards,

/A

neascisco Mon, 01/30/2012 - 03:12

Hi,

I'm sorry for the confusion, but there is an MPLS network between them.

I tried using VC5/Ethernet mode, and the xconnect is UP again:

Group orkide, XC OrkideSurnadal, state is up; Interworking none

AC: GigabitEthernet0/0/0/19.912, state is up

Type VLAN; Num Ranges: 1

VLAN ranges: [912, 912]

MTU 1600; XC ID 0x40011; interworking none

Statistics:

packets: received 134, sent 12

bytes: received 9112, sent 816

drops: illegal VLAN 0, illegal length 0

PW: neighbor 85.93.224.75, PW ID 912, state is up ( established )

PW class not set, XC ID 0x40011

Encapsulation MPLS, protocol LDP

PW type Ethernet, control word disabled, interworking none

PW backup disable delay 0 sec

Sequencing not set

MPLS         Local                          Remote

------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------

Label        16003                          20

Group ID     0x5c0                          0x0

Interface    GigabitEthernet0/0/0/19.912    unknown

MTU          1600                           1600

Control word disabled                       disabled

PW type      Ethernet                       Ethernet

VCCV CV type 0x2                            0x2

(LSP ping verification)        (LSP ping verification)

VCCV CC type 0x6                            0x2

(router alert label)           (router alert label)

(TTL expiry)

------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------

MIB cpwVcIndex: 0

Create time: 30/01/2012 19:52:07 (00:04:34 ago)

Last time status changed: 30/01/2012 19:52:07 (00:04:34 ago)

Statistics:

packets: received 12, sent 134

bytes: received 816, sent 9112

But still no connection or mac-adresses on vlan 912 on the trunk of the ME3800x.

For testing we have setup a network 10.33.33.1/24 on vlan 912 of the AC on the ASR. On the trunk port of the ME3800x we have a 3560 where we also have configured 10.33.33.10/24 on vlan 912.

So they should be able to see each other, but they don't...

Regards,

JoG

Correct Answer
akiritch Mon, 01/30/2012 - 07:31

Hi Jan,

I am not sure of ME3800 configuration and its VLAN handling. Do you know if it sends tagged or non-tagged packets to the ASR9k?

With the current configuration, ASR9k removes the VLAN tag before sending it to the ME end. Hence, the expectation that the ME would push the VLAN back sending the traffic to the end customer and the ME38 to remove the VLAN tag sending the traffic to ASR9k.

We do we get something over the PW

!

packets: received 134, sent 12

bytes: received 9112, sent 816

!

I suspect there is some mismatch in VLAN handling between the devices and hence end to end VLAN mismatch.

May you try to remove rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric from the ASR9k? this way the ASR9k would send tagged packets towards the ME switch. That is in order to verify if the ME sends tagged packets back to us too.

Regards,

/A

neascisco Tue, 01/31/2012 - 05:13

Hi,

I was not sure of the ME3800s handling of VLAN either, so I tried removing the "rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric".

And that worked!

I now have connection all the way through.

Great, thanks for the help.

Regards,

JoG

Actions

Login or Register to take actions

This Discussion

Posted January 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM
Stats:
Replies:4 Avg. Rating:5
Views:1823 Votes:0
Shares:0

Related Content

Discussions Leaderboard