From: David Prall (dcp@dcptech.com)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2007 - 11:44:06 ART
Shamin,
The PE would need to send each VRF seperately over a distinct dot1q tagged
vlan interface. You would need 35 seperate BGP neighbor relationships. I
would suspect that the Carrier would rather not do this because of scaling
issues. They are doing an import of 35 VRF's into a single Data Center VRF,
then importing the Data Center into the 35 VRF's. While the VRF's can't see
routes from each other, they all can see the Data Center and the Data Center
can see all 35 VRF routes. This doesn't allow for duplicate addressing.
-- http://dcp.dcptech.com> -----Original Message----- > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On > Behalf Of Shamin > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:32 AM > To: David Prall > Cc: Cisco certification > Subject: Re: MPLS VRF-lite problem > > Hi David, > > Thanks for your input. > > The ISP in this case is providing a 1GB Ethernet to the data > centre CE from > their PE. > They will be providing one Dot1q interface per VPN. CE to PE > connection is > running EBGP. > > If the ISP who is handling the PE is just announcing the > prefixes to the > CE router, the CE router at the DC will be receiving all the > routes of the > sites > through dot1q and will be seen in a single routing table. > > In this scenario, can the customer who does not manage the PE router, > configure VRF-lite on the CE without the PE router sending the routes > which are VRF aware. > > I am new to MPLS. I am still on the learning curve. If you > can clarify this > problem > for me. BTW, the ISP is using Alcatel in their MPLS cloud. > > Regards > Shameen > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 10:45 AM, David Prall <dcp@dcptech.com> wrote: > > > The CE to PE connection will require 35 sub-interfaces. Either > > Frame-Relay, > > ATM PVC's, or dot1q will all work. The MPLS carrier will drop off 35 > > distinct VRF's via a single link. Now how the customer > handles this, has > > nothing to do with the MPLS Carrier. > > > > David > > > > -- > > http://dcp.dcptech.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On > > > Behalf Of Shamin > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:25 PM > > > To: Cisco certification > > > Subject: MPLS VRF-lite problem > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I have a small situation here. We are providing an MPLS/VPN > > > solution to a > > > customer to connect > > > their 35 sites which are different VPN's to the Data > centre site. The > > > connection to the Data centre, > > > from the MPLS cloud will carry 35 VPN's. I understand > that, normally > > > VRF-lite is used between the > > > PE and CE in this situation. The problem I face is that the > > > customer is > > > taking the MPLS/VPN > > > service from the ISP and the ISP is not willing to accept the > > > solution with > > > VRF-lite as they say that, > > > it will extend their MPLS cloud to the customer side. > > > > > > Can anyone tell me, if this is actually the case. Running > > > VRF-lite on a > > > customer site, will it > > > compromise the ISP's MPLS network. Is there any problem the > > > ISP will face > > > by running > > > VRF-lite in this senario. If there is any , what are the > recommended > > > general practices . > > > > > > Appreciate your valuable inputs. > > > > > > Regards > > > Shameen > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > _________ > > > Subscription information may be found at: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > ______________________________________________________________ > _________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:29 ARST