I have managed to BGP VPLS to work over TE tunnels that I have created between 2 test routers placed two hops apart.
My problem is that when I switch to manual VPLS or CISCO style VPLS, the TE tunnels are not being used.
When I switch to Cisco VPLS the interfaces are created but are not running.
I am not using cspf, I have static path defined. TE tunnels are running in both directions and do work with BGP VPLS
My understanding is that when the end-points of TE tunnel match those of the VPLS, the VPLS will use the TE tunnel.
I am I missing something?
Well, all kinds of VPLS work over TE tunnels. Actually VPLS tunnels prefer LSP established with TE over LSP established with LDP.
In your situation most likely the problem is that in order to do VPLS tunnel label exchange for Cisco BGP VPLS and static VPLS, you actually need LDP, but not for establishing LSP - just for tunnel signaling (by means of targeted LDP session). Simply enable LDP on both VPLS endpoints, but do not add any interfaces.
So are you saying that if you have a working TE tunnel you should be able to create a VPLS tunnel over it without enabling LDP? If so, should that be as simple as creating a VPLS interface with the same “Remote Peer” address as the TE tunnels “to Address”?
We have multiple te tunnels that have been working for years. I’ve tried a few times to add VPLS on those tunnels but never seems to work. I add the VPLS with the same remote address at both ends of the te tunnel and nothing. Any chance you could share a config?
No config to share MrZ? Just tried again incase I was missing something obvious but still nothing. All routers in chain running v6.32.3. TE tunnels between loopbacks happily providing connectivity between the sites so I just add a VPLS interface on both boxes with matching “vpls-id” and “remote-peer” address to match the /interface traffic-eng “to-address” with everything else defaults but interface never enters into a running state. What’s your magical secret?
would work so far its not interoperable with CISCO implementation much and its widely speculated as intentional CISCO “flaw” to discourage consumers using and desperate attempt to reinforce BGP-centered,
Another week goes by and still nothing to backup the claims that RouterOS can do this. I guess, MRZ, unlike what you have been continuously saying this isn’t actually possible or is a bug in the current releases. Could you confirm which?
Indeed you can have VPLS tunnel working over LSP established by TE. The thing is that for “simple” VPLS tunnel you need LDP (it works in “targeted” mode, no need to add interfaces) to establish VPLS itself. If you do BGP based VPLS you can work w/o LDP.
Completely understand that but thought MRZ was saying you can establish VPLS over TE without the need for either LDP or BGP which is what we where hoping for.
Unfortunately VPLS needs a way to exchange tunnel labels with remote peer. The only more simple way would be to manage labels manually - allocate label for VPLS interface on each router and enter it in remote peer manually. If there is serious enough reason why you need such a feature, we can consider implementing it.
TE doesn’t require either LDP or BGP. Had assumed the VPLS shim would be inside the TE shim so rest of network wouldn’t see or care about the VPLS shim.
You are correct - the rest of network wont see or care about VPLS, but tunnel endpoints need to exchange labels, so that each knows what label other uses for particular tunnel, so if you use LDP for VPLS signalling, LDP must be enabled only on endpoints not on all routers in path.
No, you just enable LDP, without interfaces. Adding LDP interfaces means that router will start sending multicast hellos on that interface. VPLS uses targeted LDP - it sends hellos to specific IP address.
VPLS uses LSP to remote address. It can either be matching TE tunnel (with same address) or LSP established by LDP - gateway from most specific route to remote address has advertised label. So the answer to your question is - yes, remote address of VPLS must match that of TE tunnel for VPLS to use this tunnel.
That doesn’t seem to make sense. If LDP is used for the VPLS signalling only on the end points and the LSP to the TE tunnels remote address traverses routers that are not running LDP then how will the VPLS signalling traverse the routers inbetween?
LDP uses UDP as its transport. There are 2 modes for LDP - regular, where LDP speaker sends multicast hellos on its interfaces and establishes sessions with directly attached neighbors, and targeted LDP - where LDP speaker sends hellos to specific IP address and establishes session with LDP speaker anywhere on internet, as long as there is IP connectivity with remote peer.
Static VPLS tunnel automatically establishes targeted LDP session with remote peer and exchanges labels for VPLS tunnel (inner label). Next, to actually be able to forward data over tunnel, router must have LSP to remote peer (outer label). It looks for LSP at first in established TE tunnels and if there is no TE tunnel looks up LSP established by LDP (which is not there if you do not run “regular” LDP).