Hi Oli, Sorry for bugging and keeping on with this, but if we get rid of CsC then we would isolate all the "CsC" sites. That would mean reconfiguring their BGP AS's etc which would be downtime... Am I right or did I miss what you meant? There is "trust" between the AS's, but I think for the quicker safer option the Inter-AS link would be best?
Thanks again Ciao JC -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:41 PM To: JC Cockburn; 'Christian Meutes' Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Inter AS MPLS hybrid thingy... Another option would also be to get rid of CsC altogether and replace this with InterAS option C between the two networks. This allows you to establish PE-to-PE LSPs, both between Parent and Child, but also between different Child clouds on different ends of the network. Route distribution (both vpnv4 and ipv4+label) would certainly be a bit trickier, and it requires flexibility in the Parent network as this is something rather non-standard (but so is CsC, don't think it is offered as a "standard" off-the-shelf service widely). This is not an easy/straight-forwarded approach, but it could work. It's only worth if parent and child actually have a close relationship (like different parts of the same company) and also trust each other (sort of ;-). oli On 13/09/2012 13:27, "JC Cockburn" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Oli, >You understood correct. >So one of the ways is to get another (logical/physical) link from >Child_net1 >to Parent_net and do Inter-AS MPLS over that link...can be the same >physical routers. Option 10b would be the best to suite our >requirements as the number of L3VPN's might grow... > >Thanks guys >Ciao >JC > >-----Original Message----- >From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:06 PM >To: Christian Meutes >Cc: JC Cockburn; <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Inter AS MPLS hybrid thingy... > >Yes, so I read it as well.. But I guess the question is how Child_net1 >wants to interconnect with a L3VPN (not CsC) customer on Parent_net.. >If Parent_net just imports the L3VPN customer's Routes into the CsC VRF >towards Child_net (and vice versa), this would provide connectivity >between Child_net's global table and the L3VPN customer. But not (and >this is how I read it) between a Child_net L3VPN customer and the L3VPN >customer on parent_net.. >So enough speculating, let's wait for JC to clarify the requirements >:-) > > oli > >On 13/09/2012 12:54, "Christian Meutes" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hey Oli, >> >>I read it as Child_net1 is L3VPN with MPLS enabled (CsC) but I may be >>wrong... >> >>On 13.09.2012, at 11:53, "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" >><[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> Don't think this is going to work Christian. Child_net1's interface >>>to Parent_net is actually in the global table, so any addresses >>>visible there are being treated as global devices in remote parts of >>>Child_net1, not any vpnv4/VRF addresses. >>> JC, you need to setup InterAS-MPLS-VPN (whichever flavor meets your >>>need, I guess 10a or 10b would do it) on another link (which could >>>also be a subinterface of the existing one, of course). >>> >>> oli >>> >>> On 13/09/2012 11:17, "Christian Meutes" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Import&Export between the RDs and give the L3VPN-only customer also >>>>MPLS and eBGP session between them. >>>> >>>> On 13.09.2012, at 10:44, "JC Cockburn" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> We have a weird setup/requirement as following and I need some >>>>> advise >>>>> please: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Working MPLS network serving L3 VPNs (lets call it Parent_net). On >>>>>this network we have one of the VPN's as CsC serving another >>>>>"provider" >>>>> (call it >>>>> Child_net1). >>>>> >>>>> Now this provider (Child_net1) needs to communicate with another >>>>> L3VPN also on Parent_net. >>>>> >>>>> Can this be done by some means using the same existing links >>>>> between Parent_net and Child_net1 (so the CsC links)? Or do we >>>>> have to create another link/s with ASBR routers between Parent_net >>>>> and >Child_net1? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any experience/tips and/or advise would be appreciated >>>>> >>>>> Ciao & enjoy! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> JC >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
