Hi Victor, ISIS has analogy to OSPF down bit integrated if this was your question. But do check with your implementation to make sure if it supports ISIS leaking.
PE-CE ISIS is inheriting loop prevention which was defined for ISIS route leaking between levels in RFC2966 " This document redefines this high-order bit in the default metric field in TLVs 128 and 130 to be the up/down bit." On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM Victor Sudakov <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > > > > > A protocol designed to speak between 2 different autonomous systems. > > > > > > > > If that is not an option, not using a routing protocol is also a good > > > > idea, i.e., static routing. > > > > > > Well, the Internet is full of examples and recommendations of an IGP > > > (most often OSPF) being used between PE and CE, so it must be common > > > practice. In fact, OSPF even has special enhancements for this very > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > You're not my immediate competitor, so I'll advise you not to run an > IGP > > > > with a customer. > > > > > > Again, it seems a common practice to run an IGP with a customer to > > > import the customer's routes into the provider's MPLS network. > > > Yes - the examples are there on the net for most BGP resistant customers > > and non managed CPEs ... But as others already said all biggest SPs > which > > are still offering L3VPNs are only doing BGP and static. > > Still, the answer to my initial and direct question about IS-IS is... > "yes" or "no"? > > -- > Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN > 2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/
