Junos OS

IMPORTANT MODERATION NOTICE

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.



  • 1.  MC-LAG must have ICL - Why?

    Posted 09-19-2017 12:43

    Hi

     

    Every scenario I see with Junos MC-LAG requires a ICL link and the MC-AE interface has to be L2.  If you want L3 you need to back this off to a irb interface.

     

    I have the situation where I need to achieve the following:

     

    multiple downstream devices, each using the same two vlan IDs.  but each ae interface uses a different L3 subnet on vlans.

     

    example:

    client 1:

    vlan 10 = 10.1.1.2/30

    vlan 20 = 10.2.1.2/30

     

    client 2:

    vlan 10 = 10.1.1.6/30

    vlan 20 = 10.2.1.6/30

     

    on my MC-LAG peers I want to put all vlan 10 interfaces into one L3VPN and all vlan 20 interfaces into another L3VPN.

     

    on my cisco boxes I have mc-lag in active/standby and the following type of config:

     

     

    int gi1
      lacp fast
      bundle id AAA active
    
    int gi1.10 
      vrf forwarding L3VPN-A
      ipv4 address 10.1.1.2/30
    
    int gi1.20
       vrf forwarding L3VPN-B
       ipv4 address 10.2.1.2/30
    
    int gi2
      lacp fast
      bundle id BBB active
    
    int gi2.10
      vrf forwarding L3VPN-A
      ipv4 address 10.1.1.6/30
     
    int gi1.20
       vrf forwarding L3VPN-B
       ipv4 address 10.2.1.6/30
    

    now as the Cisco is running active/standby only the active router is announcing the routes into the VRF.

     

    on my Junos MX platforms I am wondering if I can do the same.

    all examples seem to indicate I need to backoff the L3 interfaces onto IRBs.  This for me means the following complications:

    1.  having to dedicate a VLAN per downlink vlan so that I can have the unique /30 subnets.

    2.  having to have vlan rewrites from the internal vlans down to the standardised vlans facing the clients.

    3.  having to place all of those internal vlans onto the ICL interface.

     

    I can understand that if I wanted an active/active setup with state sync etc I may need to do these tricks, but is it needed for active/standby?

     

    many thanks


    #mx
    #mc-lag
    #active
    #L3unicast
    #standby


  • 2.  RE: MC-LAG must have ICL - Why?
    Best Answer

    Posted 09-20-2017 01:16

    Hello,

    I'll give it a stab Smiley Happy

     


    @William.jackson@gibtele.com wrote:

    Hi

     

    Every scenario I see with Junos MC-LAG requires a ICL link 


    Technically ICL is only required for A/A MC-LAG. This is spelled out in Juniper MC-LAG tech doc

    https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/mc-lag-feature-summary-best-practices.html

     

    The interchassis link (ICL), also known as the interchassis link-protection link
    (ICL-PL), is used to forward data traffic across the MC-LAG peers. This link
    provides redundancy when a link failure (for example, an MC-LAG trunk failure)
    occurs on one of the active links.

    "one of the active" means both legs of the MC-LAG are active, a.k.a. A/A MC-LAG.

    In A/S MC-LAG, You certainly can live without ICL  but ask Yourself a question - what would You do if later on Your design changes and You suddenly need A/A MC-LAG? Scramble to invest in ICL pronto? What if MC-LAG peers are dozens of miles apart?

     


    @William.jackson@gibtele.com wrote:

    Hi

     

     If you want L3 you need to back this off to a irb interface.

     

     


    On MX series, You can use L3 subinterfaces with A/S MC-LAG in JUNOS 11.4R6 and later, this was fixed via confidential PR 804507.

    For A/A MC-LAG, on all platforms, you still need IRB with VRRP.

    HTH

    Thx

    Alex

     



  • 3.  RE: MC-LAG must have ICL - Why?

    Posted 01-30-2018 12:20


    HI,

     

    Have you guys tested failing over by shutting down the ICL interface? The mc-lag member port of the peer PE goes down alone with the ICL interface. However, the "status-control standby" interface stays down and I have to bounce it to bring it back up


    Thanks,

     

    M