The multihop BGP solution might be the best one with least overhead; however you should be able to use a GRE tunnel if you still want to do this:
interface Tunnel1 ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.252 tunnel source FastEthernet0/0 tunnel destination small.router.ip interface Tunnel1 ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.252 tunnel source FastEthernet0/0 tunnel destination big.router.ip -k On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk <pshe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a situation, where a customer wants a full BGP table > (persuasion failed already), but is connected to small router (2821), > with not enough memory to get anywhere near full table. I have few > other routers (ASR1K, 7600) that would normally be used for that, but > are in far-away locations. Of course I can set up a local BGP session > and then add a multihop one for the full feed, but that doesn't seem > like an elegant solution any more. All the routers run MPLS, so if I > could get a xconnect going between one of the bigger boxes and the > small PE, without actually wasting port on the bigger router (by > having some sort of logical interface) then I could run the BGP > session directly. I had a look on Cisco website, but either it's not > possible or that kind of bridging has a special name that I can't pin > down. If you've heard of such feature - please let me know. > > kind regards > Pshem > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >
