search

openconfig / public

Repository for publishing OpenConfig models, documentation, and other material for the community.
Apache License 2.0
895 stars 655 forks source link

network-instance: configure L2-L3 stitching ( terminate VLL or VPLS to VRF service ) #349

Closed crcampos612 closed 3 months ago

crcampos612 commented 4 years ago

Hi, I trying to model a configuration for interconnecting Layer 2 VPNs with Layer 3 VPNs using network-instance module. From CLI perspective, vendors treat this issue under different approaches. Either using "intermediate" logical interfaces like Juniper ( logical tunnel interface ) or, in the case of Nokia, through the concept of "spoke termination". In the end, both of them allow to "hairpin" a L2 and a L3 service in the same device. However, in order to translate to openconfig model, it doesn't look clear how to do it. Theoretically, steps would be, first, creating a network-instance type=L2P2P and then another network-instance type=L3VRF, but how to bind them to stitch both services ? If you try to put in "/network-instances/network-instance/interfaces/interface/config/interface" a reference to the VLL or PW termination previously defined, as usually you would do with a physical interface, what name or reference you should use ? Finally, I see another network-instance type=L2L3, but I don't understand if it's applicable here an how to. Many Thanks in advance!

aashaikh commented 4 years ago

I'm not sure if we have an example that exactly covers this case, but there is a doc explaining a few different scenarios that tie together interfaces and L2/L3 network instances.

luciaob commented 4 years ago

Hi,

Aligned with @crcampos612 question, in the case we have the following PE-CE scenario: image

How could traffic comming from the VLL be stitched/linked into the L3VPN?

I have reviewd the doc that @aashaikh referred, but I cannot see how this stitching could be done wth openconfig-network-instance model currently available.

github-actions[bot] commented 5 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 180 days with no activity. If you wish to keep this issue active, please remove the stale label or add a comment, otherwise will be closed in 14 days.