Log in to ask questions, share your expertise, or stay connected to content you value. Don’t have a login? Learn how to become a member.
HelloWe have Juniper MX204 (version 20.4R3-S3.4) as PEs in our backbone, we want to terminate l2circuit to l3vpn on PE, then, we used logical tunnel interface.What I'm trying to acheve is this : https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/vpn-l3/topics/topic-map/l3-vpns-connecting-to-layer2-circuits.htmlOur setup is working only when tunnel-services bandwidth is set at 1Gigabit/s, as below :set chassis fpc 0 pic 0 tunnel-services bandwidth 1gset chassis fpc 0 pic 1 tunnel-services bandwidth 1gWhen we setup bandwidth to 10g, lt- interfaces are not working (even, they are not displayed when trying "sh interface terse | match lt-)set chassis fpc 0 pic 0 tunnel-services bandwidth 10gset chassis fpc 0 pic 1 tunnel-services bandwidth 10gI have some questions:1- Do logical tunnel interfaces on juniper MX204 are limited to 1g as bandwidth ? 2- Did you know why logical tunnel interfaces set à 10Gigabit/s as bandwidth are not working ?2- How many logical tunnel subinterfaces MX204 can support ? 3- Is there any lt- interface limitations in terms of QoS for example ?4- Can you share some documents ?Thank you for your replies.
Hello I have a couple of MX204s and have the setup done
set chassis fpc 0 pic 0 tunnel-services bandwidth 20gThe interface itself is working I can ping between the lt interfaces but I have another problem which at the moment is being analyzed by Juniper Perhaps your problem is similar to mine
i use Junos: 20.4R2.7
Hello GRZEGORZ DACKAThank you for your reply, I have just try with "set chassis fpc 0 pic 0 tunnel-services bandwidth 20g", still I can't ping between lt- interfaces.Can you share the another problem you have ? do Juniper reply you already ?Best regards
What about just dropping the «bandwidth <whatever>» part of both lines, that is actually not needed at all ?
Hello Olivier BenghoziThank you for your message.I have tried to just dropping bandwidth <whatever>, my setup is not working, only when I put bandwidth 1g my setup start working.if you find any way that can explain this behavior, please let me know.Best regards
First do You check Your port config https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html ?
If Yes remember when You use lt interface also use bandwitch so if you have like example 4 x 100G Qsfp use so that the issue
Pls show if is possible config of both logical system configuration regarding lt interface
HelloThank you GRZEGORZ DACKA for your reply.
I saw, what was my issue.
Switching tunnel-services bandwidth at chassis level from 1g to 10g or more, changes the numbering of lt interfaces, which caused my first setup that worked with 1g to no longer work when I changed the bandwidth to 10g. So I adapted according lt numbering interfaces and it works.
But I stil have some question.What is the impact of fpc throughput when using lt interfaces ?
Is there any limitation when using lt- interfaces on MX204 ?
If you have any suggestion, please fill free to share.Thank you again.
As written inhttps://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/interfaces-encryption/topics/topic-map/configuring-tunnel-interfaces.htmlyou can see that for an MX204, If you do not specify the tunnel bandwidth then the tunnel interface can have a maximum bandwidth of up to 200 Gbps.lt (tunnel interfaces) actually uses the total bandwidth of the PFE (which is 400Gb/s for an MX204) for the PIC/MIC where it's configured (200Gb/s per fixed PIC/MIC on an MX204), like an additional physical port would do on a PIC/MIC of the MPC. If there's no traffic, no bandwidth is used.400/2 = 200 makes sense as there are two fixed PIC/MIC in an MX204: actually the Trio4/Eagle is used with one side (port side in an MPC7) attached on one fixed PIC/MIC, and the other side (HighSpeedLink / fabric side on an MPC7) is attached to the second fixed PIC/MIC.So it appears that an lt/tunnel interface configured on a PIC/MIC will consume the bandwidth of this PIC/MIC, when it sees some traffic.And you'll probably want to drop the artificial bandwidth limitation for the tunnel interface.