Re: MPLS VPN // OSPF as CE<->PE protocol

Hi Victor ,

1- Should I extend the area 10 to the PE 1? ---- This to me is the
best option , all though there are many other alternatives ( beauty of
routing and switching :-) )

For sham link to work CE1 and CE2 links to their respective PEs must
be in the same area , because the sham link it self is an INTRA-AREA
link , what it does is it makes the mpls vpn link which is by default
inter area to be an intra area link.

On 10/15/10, Victor <cisco.all.stuff_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Everybody!!
>
> Can someone provide any insights about an scenario where the backdoor link
> is a non-backbone area and it's not on the same area than both CE-PE links,
> so I wonder what would be the best solution so the MPLS backbone is used as
> primary path from one site to another.
>
> 1- Should I extend the area 10 to the PE 1?
>
> 2- In other hand, do I need the PE to have an interface within an area to
> create a sham-link for this area?
>
> [PE1]----------------------------------[PE2]
>
> Area 0 Area 10
>
> [CE1]-------------Area 10------------[CE2]
>
> Regards... Victor
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Warm Regards,
Eseosa
CCIE #23782
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net