This community is currently under full moderation, meaning  all posts will be reviewed before appearing in the community. Please expect a brief delay—there is no need to post multiple times. If your post is rejected, you'll receive an email outlining the reason(s). We've implemented full moderation to control spam. Thank you for your patience and participation.

Expand all | Collapse all


Jump to Best Answer
  • 1.  Hi MC-LAG + VRF ?

    Posted 10-29-2016 01:20



    Im curious is it possible to do MC-LAG with "Virtual router instance" beetwen 2 peering switch, i see an example doing mc-lag with vrrp to achieve active-active link, can i do it with virtual router to isolate some vlan with another vlan ? If im using virtual chassis i can do this easily with vrf, but with the downside is single control plane, which cause problem if i shutdown or upgrading firmware.




  • 2.  RE: Hi MC-LAG + VRF ?

    Posted 10-29-2016 05:08

    I'm not sure I understand the topology.  But the questions seems to be can you treat an MC-LAG interface the same way you would treat an AE interface.  In that case the answer is yes.  The MC-LAG can be placed into virtual router instances just as an AE interface is.

  • 3.  RE: Hi MC-LAG + VRF ?
    Best Answer

    Posted 10-29-2016 07:01

    In Active-active MC-LAG- we use to configure IRB interface for each vlan, now put eachIRB interface in serprate routing instance and your target is achieved. 

  • 4.  RE: Hi MC-LAG + VRF ?

    Posted 10-31-2016 19:34



    I never tried this, and im planning this for my network development. 



  • 5.  RE: Hi MC-LAG + VRF ?

    Posted 10-29-2016 13:05

    Not sure which product you are talking about, but yes MC-LAG configuration can be used with type virtual-router or virtual-switch.  Without doing something special, generally route leaking, but default VLANs in the different Virtual routing/switching instances can not communicate.  Generally this is accomplished via some extenal FW/SRX.  In this way VLANs within an instances can communicate directly (route) but between instances need some policy (FW rule) to communicate.  This is used very often and is quite common.


    With a VR/VLAN if you want MC-LAG A/A with local routing on each switch regardless of which link the external (LAG'd) device takes, then yes VRRP is required. This is not the case with VC.  The RVI would span the whole VC depending on which interfaces are members.


    Hope this helps.