A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
elwinietf at yahoo.com
Sun May 20 04:14:40 UTC 2001
Even i am interested in knowing the exact issue with
using IGPs? What is the most common CE-PE route
exchange behaviour now ... Static routes OR IGP OR
Dave, are you referring the CE loopback address also
to be local?
--- Alex Mondrus <alex.mondrus at ipoptical.com> wrote:
> I also like the RFC2547bis.
> I would like to learn more about your painful
> experience with IGP in this
> context. Please elaborate a little bit more on this
> subject -> Dave Israel
> wrote "Besides, in at least one major current
> implementation, your IGP
> options are painfully limited."
> Thanks in advance, Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Israel
> [mailto:davei at biohazard.demon.digex.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:45 PM
> To: Elwin Eliazer
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges
> On 5/18/2001 at 14:13:53 -0700, Elwin Eliazer said:
> > Hi,
> > RFC2547bis suggests the use of EBGP between
> > CE and PE routers; Is this a preferable model for
> > service providers and enterprise customers, when
> > compared to using IGP?
> Yes. BGP is designed for network borders. Besides,
> in at least one
> major current implementation, your IGP options are
> painfully limited.
> > Are there anyone who have deployed this? If so,
> > how is the EBGP peering setup if the CE router
> > is with a local (VPN) IP address?
> The BGP session lives in VPN space, the routes only
> exist in VPN
> routing tables. Your CE having a VPN address is
> really just the
> natural solution.
Elwin Stelzer Eliazer
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
More information about the NANOG