Re: MPLS, disjointed OSPF area 0 and sham link

OK. I figured out some of it. At least one PE router has to have
connection to area 0, so I configured virtual-link between CE1 and PE,
and now PE routers now exchange OSPF routes between sites,
Another problem is configuring sham link. I configured two new
loopbacks, advertised them into BGP, configured sham link between
those loopbacks and I get this:

R4#
*Mar 23 21:10:25.065: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 2, Nbr 9.9.5.5 on
OSPF_SL1 from LOADING to FULL, Loading Done
R4#
*Mar 23 21:10:34.693: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 2, Nbr 9.9.5.5 on
OSPF_SL1 from FULL to DOWN, Neighbor Down: Interface down or detached
R4#
*Mar 23 21:10:45.081: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 2, Nbr 9.9.5.5 on
OSPF_SL1 from LOADING to FULL, Loading Done
R4#
*Mar 23 21:10:54.693: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 2, Nbr 9.9.5.5 on
OSPF_SL1 from FULL to DOWN, Neighbor Down: Interface down or detached

??? Anybody?

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Ivan Hrvatska <ivanzghr_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys, what about this scenario (I posted as reply on older mail, but
> no answer, so here it is again):
>
> Lo0 Lo0
> | |
> PE---------eigrp---------PE
> | |
> | |
> Ar1 Ar2
> | |
> CE1 CE2
> | |
> Ar0 Ar2
> | |
> | |
> RT1---------Ar2----- ----RT2
> | |
> \--------backdoor---------
>
>
> CE1 - PE running OSPF in vrf VPN-A
> CE2 - PE running OSPF in vrf VPN-A
>
> Loopback interfaces of PE routers are in EIGRP domain and MPLS is
> using them as transport addresses (mpls ID).
>
> Provider has EIGRP in his core network. Not one PE router has
> connection to Area 0. How to solve that problem so that VPN sites can
> exchange OSPF routes. After that, it is neccesary to make sure that
> customer traffic goes through the MPLS clooud, not backdoor link.
> My problem is how to solve problem with non-area0 connecting to PE
> routers and how tu use sham-link after that. No static routes allowed
> :)

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Mar 23 2010 - 22:10:00 ART