Re: Inter-AS MPLS VPN

Vignesh,

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_1t/12_1t5/feature/guide/InterAS.html#wp1115949

and also check out RFC 2547

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2547.html

Jo

2009/9/11 Vignesh Sethuraman <sethuvignesh_at_gmail.com>

> oh really. Thanks alot Jo.
>
> Do you have any cisco doc that gives a clear insight for this.
>
> I am not aware till this time that RR will disable ARF. If you could you
> could point me to a document for all the options of Inter-AS MPLS, then it
> will be a great help.
>
> Thanks,
> Vignesh
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Jo Knight <joknight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Vignesh,
>>
>> There are two ways to disable ARF - by configuring the router as a RR or
>> to disable bgp default route-target filtering.
>>
>> So by configuring R1 as a RR for VPNv4 routes you disabled it.
>>
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> 2009/9/11 Vignesh Sethuraman <sethuvignesh_at_gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi Jo,
>>>
>>> Thank you Jo. Excellent Explanation.
>>>
>>> But I am confused that even in R1 (RR) there are no VRF instance
>>> configured but how come R1(RR) alone accept that route from R2.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vignesh.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Jo Knight <joknight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vignesh,
>>>>
>>>> The ASBR will reject the routes that are reflected down from R1 as the
>>>> default behaviour is to reject VPNv4 routes that it does not have a VRF
>>>> instance for - this is called Automatic Route Filtering.
>>>>
>>>> There is no need for the ASBR to know about these routes, but if you
>>>> wanted them to show on the ASBR try adding this command to your BGP config.
>>>>
>>>> no bgp default route-target filter
>>>>
>>>> Jo
>>>>
>>>> 2009/9/11 Vignesh Sethuraman <sethuvignesh_at_gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Experts,
>>>>>
>>>>> In Option 3 (10C): Multi-Hop MP-eBGP Between RR and eBGP Between ASBRs
>>>>> -
>>>>> Inter-AS MPLS VPN, the routes are not learned by ASBR. This is an
>>>>> expected
>>>>> behavior. But I could not understand the reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my scenario R2 is the PE which redistribute the route 200.0.0.4/32into
>>>>> VPNV4 table, R1 is the RR which receives VPNV4 route from R2 and R5 is
>>>>> ASBR
>>>>> connected to other AS which is not receiving the route from RR. Though
>>>>> it is
>>>>> an expected behavior, Could someone explain the reason.
>>>>> *
>>>>> R2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all | inc 200.0.0.4
>>>>> *> 200.0.0.4/32 150.50.24.1 1 32768
>>>>>
>>>>> R2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all labels | inc 200.0.0.4
>>>>> 200.0.0.4/32 150.50.24.1 19/nolabel
>>>>>
>>>>> R1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all | inc 200.0.0.4
>>>>> *>i200.0.0.4/32 200.0.0.2 1 100 0 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> R1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all labels | inc 200.0.0.4
>>>>> 200.0.0.4/32 200.0.0.2 nolabel/19
>>>>>
>>>>> R5#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
>>>>>
>>>>> R5#
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vignesh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Fri Sep 11 2009 - 19:50:16 ART