Re: mpls vpn question - pe to ce protocol is OSPF

You rock, thanks

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Piotr Matusiak <piotr_at_ccie1.com> wrote:

> Let's left something to be done on SP lab :)
> I think this is too advanced for R&S and would not expect that on the exam.
> Anyways, good to know that there is something like sham links so you
> will not get heart attack when see those words in the task :)
>
> Good luck!
>
> --
> Piotr Matusiak
> CCIE #19860 (R&S, SEC)
>
>
> 2009/9/15 ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>:
> > Super cool guys, many thanks.
> >
> > Yeah, I read about the 'super backbone' and figured this was being
> > considered another area ... it is a super area. ;-)
> >
> > Thanks team ... I do not see sham links on the blue print ... perhaps
> this
> > is 'in-there' or implied somewhere? Please comment.
> >
> > Many thanks again!!!
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Luis Anzola <lanzola_at_desca.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> You get IA routes because it is the default behavior when you us OSPF
> as
> >> PE-CE routing protocol as Piotr commented. In a normal situation when
> you
> >> redistribute BGP into OSPF you will have a External Route. In this case,
> >> OSPF use the concept of Super Backbone inside the MPLS Domain where the
> >> Redistribution from MP-BGP into OSPF generates IA routes to avoid the
> >> following caveats:
> >>
> >> * External routes cannot be summarized.
> >> * External routes are flooded across all OSPF areas.
> >> * External routes could use a different metric type that is not
> comparable
> >> to OSPF Cost.
> >> * Internal routes are always preferred over external routes, regardless
> of
> >> their cost.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ing. Luis Anzola
> >>
> >> CCIE # 21959 | e-mail: lanzola_at_desca.com
> >>
> >> -----Mensaje original-----
> >> De: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] En nombre de
> ALL
> >> From_NJ
> >> Enviado el: Lunes, 14 de Septiembre de 2009 04:47 p.m.
> >> Para: Cisco certification
> >> Asunto: mpls vpn question - pe to ce protocol is OSPF
> >>
> >> Hey yall, ;-)
> >>
> >> I hope this email finds you doing well.
> >>
> >> Labed up a scenario and have a quick question about OSPF routes on
> either
> >> CE. They show as IA.
> >>
> >> On each PE, I have the same process number and the same domain-id is
> listed
> >> in the show ip ospf 2 command (I am using process number 2 for my vrf).
> I
> >> know this would show an E2 route ... but just the same, the configs are
> >> identical. Also ping and everything works fine across the MPLS
> backbone.
> >>
> >> Why would I get IA and not an 'O' ? The little research I did makes
> this
> >> appear "it is what it is".
> >>
> >> Back when I used to actually work w/ MPLS, I forgot if this was ever an
> >> issue ... humm ... don't remember ever being worried about this.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> I am going to be moving on to EIGRP or RIP tonight, but if anyone has
> any
> >> thoughts or comments I would love to hear them. Kindest regards team,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Lee Lissitz
> >> all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Lee Lissitz
> > all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net