Hello Everyone,
I have a query on the strange behavior of STP over VPLS. I have some PE routers[MikroTik CCR1036] configured for LDP and full mesh VPLS pseudo-wires over it. For additional clarity, please refer to the attached VPLS network design.
If you look into my design, there are three PE routers R1,R2 and R3 and two PE Switches Sw1(C3750) & Sw2(C2950)] and they are connected to their respective PE routers.
Additionally, I have a Cisco3750 CE switch which is connected to both the PE Switches via dual Fiber uplinks.
I have configured three VLANs on my switches VLAN1, VLAN301 and VLAN302 and Cisco PVST+ on all the switches in order to prevent possible loop that can occur via VPLS cloud, i.e. Sw1=>Sw3=>Sw2=>PE(R2)=>PE(R3)=>Sw1.
Now, if I pass only one of the VLANs, it works and the interface Fa2/0/3 port of Sw3 gets blocked by STP.
Sw3#sh spanning-tree vlan 301
VLAN0301
Spanning tree enabled protocol rstp
Root ID Priority 24877
Address 001b.0c17.b780
Cost 19
Port 58 (FastEthernet2/0/2)
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec
Bridge ID Priority 33069 (priority 32768 sys-id-ext 301)
Address 001c.f900.e600
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec
Aging Time 300 sec
Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type
Fa2/0/2 Root FWD 19 128.58 P2p
Fa2/0/3 Altn BLK 19 128.59 P2p
But, whenever I pass one more VLAN via VPLS bridge, the interfaces connected to PE routers get into "PVST_Inconsistent" mode. Here is the output.
Sw1:
*Mar 1 10:24:33.865: %SPANTREE-2-RECV_PVID_ERR: Received BPDU with inconsistent peer vlan id 301 on FastEthernet1/0/1 VLAN302.
*Mar 1 10:24:33.865: %SPANTREE-2-BLOCK_PVID_PEER: Blocking FastEthernet1/0/1 on VLAN0301. Inconsistent peer vlan.
*Mar 1 10:24:33.865: %SPANTREE-2-BLOCK_PVID_LOCAL: Blocking FastEthernet1/0/1 on VLAN0302. Inconsistent local vlan.
Sw2:
23:46:41: %SPANTREE-2-RECV_PVID_ERR: Received BPDU with inconsistent peer vlan id 301 on FastEthernet0/2 VLAN302.
23:46:41: %SPANTREE-2-BLOCK_PVID_PEER: Blocking FastEthernet0/2 on VLAN0301. Inconsistent peer vlan.
23:46:41: %SPANTREE-2-BLOCK_PVID_LOCAL: Blocking FastEthernet0/2 on VLAN0302. Inconsistent local vlan.
Sw2#show spanning-tree inconsistentports
Name Interface Inconsistency
VLAN0301 FastEthernet0/2 Port VLAN ID Mismatch
VLAN0302 FastEthernet0/2 Port VLAN ID Mismatch
Number of inconsistent ports (segments) in the system : 2
Sw1#show spanning-tree inconsistentports
Name Interface Inconsistency
VLAN0301 FastEthernet1/0/1 Port VLAN ID Mismatch
VLAN0302 FastEthernet1/0/1 Port VLAN ID Mismatch
Number of inconsistent ports (segments) in the system : 2
R1 Configuration:
[admin@R1] > mpls ldp export
jan/02/1970 22:45:20 by RouterOS 6.15
/mpls ldp
set enabled=yes lsr-id=1.1.1.1 transport-address=1.1.1.1
/mpls ldp interface
add interface=sfp1
[admin@R1] > inter vpls export
/interface vpls
add advertised-l2mtu=1532 cisco-style=yes cisco-style-id=1 disabled=no l2mtu=1532 mac-address=02:EA:17:FC:FB:DB name=VPLS_CLOUD pw-type=
tagged-ethernet remote-peer=2.2.2.2 use-control-word=no vpls-id=10:1
[admin@R1] > inter bridge export
/interface bridge
add l2mtu=1532 name=L2VPN
add name=Loopback0
/interface bridge port
add bridge=L2VPN interface=VLAN301
add bridge=L2VPN interface=VPLS_CLOUD
add bridge=L2VPN interface=VLAN302
[admin@R1] > inter vlan ex
/interface vlan
add interface=ether1 l2mtu=1586 name=VLAN1 vlan-id=1
add interface=ether1 l2mtu=1586 name=VLAN301 vlan-id=301
add interface=ether1 l2mtu=1586 name=VLAN302 vlan-id=302
[admin@R1] >
R2 Configuration:
[admin@R2] > mpls ldp export
jan/02/1970 22:09:03 by RouterOS 6.5
/mpls ldp
set enabled=yes lsr-id=2.2.2.2 transport-address=2.2.2.2
/mpls ldp interface
add interface=sfp1
[admin@R2] > inter vpls export
/interface vpls
add advertised-l2mtu=1532 cisco-style=yes cisco-style-id=1 disabled=no l2mtu=1532 mac-address=02:1F:7C:99:74:3D name=VPLS_CLOUD pw-type=
tagged-ethernet remote-peer=1.1.1.1 use-control-word=no vpls-id=10:1
[admin@R2] > inter bridge export
/interface bridge
add l2mtu=1532 name=L2VPN
add name=Loopback0
/interface bridge port
add bridge=L2VPN interface=VLAN301
add bridge=L2VPN interface=VPLS_CLOUD
add bridge=L2VPN interface=VLAN302
[admin@R2] > interface vlan ex
/interface vlan
add interface=ether1 l2mtu=1586 name=VLAN1 vlan-id=1
add interface=ether1 l2mtu=1586 name=VLAN301 vlan-id=301
add interface=ether1 l2mtu=1586 name=VLAN302 vlan-id=302
R1 Outputs:
[admin@R1] > ip address print
Flags: X - disabled, I - invalid, D - dynamic
ADDRESS NETWORK INTERFACE
0 10.1.12.1/24 10.1.12.0 sfp1
1 1.1.1.1/32 1.1.1.1 Loopback0
[admin@R1] >
[admin@R1] > mpls ldp nei print
Flags: X - disabled, D - dynamic, O - operational, T - sending-targeted-hello, V - vpls
TRANSPORT LOCAL-TRANSPORT PEER SEND-TARGETED ADDRESSES
0 DOTV 2.2.2.2 1.1.1.1 2.2.2.2:0 yes 2.2.2.2
10.1.12.2
[admin@R1] > inter vpls print
Flags: X - disabled, R - running, D - dynamic, B - bgp-signaled, C - cisco-bgp-signaled
0 R name="VPLS_CLOUD" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1532 mac-address=02:EA:17:FC:FB:DB arp=enabled disable-running-check=no remote-peer=2.2.2.2 vpls-id=10:1
cisco-style=yes cisco-style-id=1 advertised-l2mtu=1532 pw-type=tagged-ethernet use-control-word=no
[admin@R1] >
R2 Outputs:
[admin@R2] > ip add print
Flags: X - disabled, I - invalid, D - dynamic
ADDRESS NETWORK INTERFACE
0 10.1.12.2/24 10.1.12.0 sfp1
1 2.2.2.2/32 2.2.2.2 Loopback0
[admin@R2] >
[admin@R2] > mpls ldp neighbor print
Flags: X - disabled, D - dynamic, O - operational, T - sending-targeted-hello, V - vpls
TRANSPORT LOCAL-TRANSPORT PEER SEND-TARGETED ADDRESSES
0 DOTV 1.1.1.1 2.2.2.2 1.1.1.1:0 yes 1.1.1.1
10.1.12.1
[admin@R2] > inter vpls print
Flags: X - disabled, R - running, D - dynamic, B - bgp-signaled, C - cisco-bgp-signaled
0 R name="VPLS_CLOUD" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1532 mac-address=02:1F:7C:99:74:3D arp=enabled disable-running-check=no remote-peer=1.1.1.1 vpls-id=10:1
cisco-style=yes cisco-style-id=1 advertised-l2mtu=1532 pw-type=tagged-ethernet use-control-word=no
As we know that R1 doesn't need be configured for any loop prevention mechanism since there is a feature called "split-horizon" in VPLS, which makes us to ensure the L2 path to be loop free. So, you can ignore R1 as part of this scenario. Hope I have been able to explain my design properly and expecting someones input on the same. If you need any additional information, please let me know.
Thanks in Advance!!
Regards,
2XCCIE
