Yes, it does make some sense. I'm going to have to take a deeper dive into understanding routing domains and virtual routing tables. I noticed a good article on packetmischief.ca which seems to provide a good overview. Thanks again for your help.
Matt On Mar 8, 2016 2:17 AM, "Claudio Jeker" wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:29:48AM -0500, Matt Schwartz wrote: > > Thank you much, Claudio! That was the ticket. I had put my depend on mpe0 > > in the wrong place. I was mostly using your mpls example. Dumb questions: > > Why do you not create a default route in rdomain 1 on the 2nd PE in your > > mpls example network? Why do you not have network 0.0.0.0/0 on the 2nd PE? > > Thanks for helping me with my understanding gaps. > > > > From the top of my memory the idea is that the 2nd PE gets the default > route from the 1st PE similar to a client connecting via MPLS VPN to a > ISP. Does this make sense? > > -- > :wq Claudio
