Hi Rick, Thanks for your quick reply.
Yes. I am doing Vol2 labs now and Yes. It covered inter-as. But I want to know in Doccd (in case in exam if we stuck somewhere), where the following topics are mentioned: back-to-back VRF LC-ATM internet Access Thanks, Srinivas On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Rick Mur <[email protected]> wrote: > It's pretty easy. > > You make the 2 edge routers that connect each others AS a PE device. Then > you take the link between the routers (for example Ethernet) and make a > sub-interface (802.1Q tagged) for each VPN. Put that interface in the VRF of > the VPN on both ends. Then run a dynamic protocol in each VRF to exchange > the routes to the other end (could be anything, just PE-CE stuff, but now > used as PE-PE). > > Our Workbook 1 has a lab about it, actually all 3 ways of doing Inter-AS > VPNs are explained there. Also the Workbook 2 labs include every way of > doing it in at least 1 lab (5 of the 10 are really focused on Inter-AS > communications, so is the real SP lab). > > This page (they copied a chapter from MPLS Configuration on Cisco IOS, so > technically it's illegal :-), explains every method in detail with configs > and diagrams. > > > http://mpls-configuration-on-cisco-ios-software.org.ua/1587051990/ch07lev1sec2.html > > > -- > Regards, > > Rick Mur > CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider) > Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com > > On 23 dec 2009, at 17:22, srinivas pv wrote: > > Hi, > > In Cisco online documentation, I saw config steps/examples for other > inter-AS scenarios except back-to-back VRF (even though it was mentioned in > other books etc, and is straight forward) > > Any idea, where can I find config steps/examples for back-to-back vrf on > CCO. > > Also following topics: > LC-ATM > VPN internet access. > > Thanks, > Srinivas > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Rick Mur <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
