Indeed, redistributing eBGP prefixes in the IGP would definitely work when send-label is specified by the 2 ASBR eBGP routers. Than you should have an end-to-end LSP between the PE's in both AS's.
Then you configure multi-hop eBGP VPNv4 between the PE's and that way distribute the VPN prefixes between the AS's, this is RFC2547bis Option C. The only way of doing Inter-AS VPN's WITHOUT any VPNv4 communication is with Option A, which is a back-to-back VRF-lite configuration on ethernet sub-interfaces or multiple FR DLCI or ATM VC sub-interfaces. -- Regards, Rick Mur CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider) Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com On 23 dec 2009, at 16:43, matt reath wrote: > I've run into lab scenarios where an InterAS VPN needed to be established w/o > using the VPNv4 family between the eBGP neighbors. To get it to work properly > I configured send-labels on the eBGP neighbors and made sure that each AS > knew about the other AS's loopback addresses via BGP<->IGP redistribution. > That way there is a label defined via LDP/IGP in each AS for the other ASs > loopack addresses. I used next-hop-self on the iBGP neighbors but it still > wouldn't build a complete LSP unless the other AS's loopbacks were > redistributed. > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Rick Mur <[email protected]> wrote: > Try and convince yourself why you would need to add the send-label. See what > you are doing and if you know that the next-hop prefixes already have a label > through IGP/LDP or do you need to allocate labels for the EBGP prefixes, it > really depends on your implementation just like Bryan said. If next-hop-self > is used for EBGP prefixes than the next-hop address already has a label > allocated through the IGP and LDP, so no then you don't need send-label. > > Really convince yourself of doing something, rather than doing a 'best > practice'. See how the LSP works and how things are allocated. > > -- > Regards, > > Rick Mur > CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider) > Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com > > On 21 dec 2009, at 21:35, Bryan Bartik wrote: > >> Srinivas, >> >> If you are doing MP-EBGP between the ASBRs and using next-hop-self from the >> ASBRs to the internal peers, then you shouldn't need send-label at all. In >> this lab, NHS is configured in the PG so I think send-label is unnecessary. >> >> If you didn't use next-hop-self then you need to get that ASBR link into BGP >> and use send-label from ASBR to IBGP peers. >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM, srinivas pv <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi Team, >> >> I am doing this lab and I have the following query. Please do the needful. >> >> This is inter-AS scenario, and the restriction is not to allow LDP on any >> interconnecting links between networks. >> >> So we need to use send-label on the links between AS 100 and 200. Why do we >> need to configure send-label for iBGP neighbors also? >> Is interconnecting links means, here iBGP also? >> >> >> Thanks, >> Srinivas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Bryan Bartik >> CCIE #23707 (R&S, SP), CCNP >> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. >> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
