Re: Re : OSPF cost through MPLS VPN

Ya its should be higher
Sorry silly mistake

http://prakashkalsaria.wordpress.com
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM, kalsaria.prakash_at_gmail.com <
kalsaria.prakash_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Ya its should be higher
> Sorry silly mistake
>
>
>

> http://prakashkalsaria.wordpress.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Brayton
> Sent: 24:05:2010 4:38:09 pm
> Subject: Re: Re : OSPF cost through MPLS VPN
>
> When the Sham-Link is up and operational, the backdoor link should have a
> HIGHER cost not a lower cost.
>
>
> On May 23, 2010, at 11:55 PM, <kalsaria.prakash_at_gmail.com> <
> kalsaria.prakash_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > if the backdoor link cost is same as the MPLS VPN backbone
> > It Will choose intra-area routes even after manipulating the cost
> >
> > other option which i tried during labbing was change the cost of backdoor
> link
> > on physical interface
> >
> > Using a Sham link: you backdoor link cost should be less than the MPLS
> VPN
> > backbone to choose backbone for traffic
> >
> >
> > Prakash Kalsaria
> > http://prakashkalsaria.wordpress.com
> >
> >
> > 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 Mon May 24 2010 - 17:14:23 ART