Re: OSPF as CE-PE question

Spam detection software, running on the system "groupstudy.com", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
admin_at_groupstudy.com for details.

Content preview: i think, it depends upon your traffic flows direction requirements
   so, if you don't care about using MPLS as primary path, you will be ok with
   only one side. if you do, you'll need to extend backbone to both sides [...]
   

Content analysis details: (6.4 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 1.5 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread)
                            [URIs: ccie.net]
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
                            trust
                            [209.85.215.199 listed in list.dnswl.org]
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail
                            (mikhail.detochkin[at]gmail.com)
 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                            CUSTOM_MED
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
 4.7 BAYES_80 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 80 to 95%
                            [score: 0.8104]
 0.9 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
Received: from mail-ey0-f199.google.com (mail-ey0-f199.google.com
  [209.85.215.199]) by groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with
  ESMTP id oB4AZIGd023410 GroupStudy Mailer; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 05:35:18
  -0500
Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so2433620eyb.6 for
  <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:35:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.69.75 with SMTP id y11mr127358wbi.4.1291458917597;
  Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:35:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinLUAxMQrEW0FqQeMJEX=BzzdenKiW0sUEqn051_at_mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00163683328a068a7f0496933644_at_google.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:35:17 +0000
Subject: Re: OSPF as CE-PE question
From: mikhail.detochkin_at_gmail.com
To: Usha Rani <usha2bccie_at_gmail.com>, Cisco certification
  <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by GroupStudy
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain

i think, it depends upon your traffic flows direction requirements
so, if you don't care about using MPLS as primary path, you will be ok with
only one side.
if you do, you'll need to extend backbone to both sides

On Dec 4, 2010 11:04am, Usha Rani <usha2bccie_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Experts,

> I have a question in OSPF as CE-PE.

> I understood that, if the CE to PE is non-backbone area, then we need to

> extend the backbone till the PE, so we can use either virtual-link or GRE

> tunnel.

> But, my question is, if both CE1-PE1 and CE2-PE2 are non-backbone areas
> and

> both are in different areas, do we need to extend the backbone on the both

> the CEs, one one-side is enough?

> Topo would look like this:

> PE1--------------------PE2

> | |

> | |

> | |

> Area-2 Area-3

> | |

> | |

> | |

> CE1-----Area-0----CE2 or may be some others routers in bewtween CE1 and

> CE2, that are part of Area-0.

> Thanks,

> Usha

> 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 Sat Dec 04 2010 - 10:35:17 ART