I came across the following:
routing-instances evpn-mpls {
vtep-source-interface lo0.0;
instance-type virtual-switch;
interface lt-1/0/10.4;
route-distinguisher 101:2;
vrf-target target:2:2;
protocols {
evpn {
extended-vlan-list 51-52;
}
}
bridge-domains {
bd1 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 51;
}
bd2 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 52;
}
}
}
routing-instances red {
vtep-source-interface lo0.0;
instance-type virtual-switch;
interface lt-1/0/10.4
route-distinguisher 101:1;
vrf-target target:1:1;
protocols {
evpn {
encapsulation vxlan;
extended-vni-list all;
}
}
bridge-domains {
bd1 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 51;
routing-interface irb.0;
vxlan {
vni 51;
encapsulate-inner-vlan;
decapsulate-accept-inner-vlan;
ingress-node-replication;
}
}
bd2 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 52;
routing-interface irb.1;
vxlan {
vni 52;
encapsulate-inner-vlan;
decapsulate-accept-inner-vlan;
ingress-node-replication;
}
}
}
}
One of logical interface is a typo ?
One of them should be lt-0/0/10.3, not both are lt-0/0/10.4. Right ?