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: Dear Usha, You need to create an virtual-link between CE1
  to PE1 and CE2 with PE2 to extend the routes of CE's area0 over the MPLS cloud.
   Regards, Anser [...]

Content analysis details: (6.5 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
                            [score: 1.0000]
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
                            trust
                            [209.85.161.51 listed in list.dnswl.org]
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (manserkhan[at]gmail.com)
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                            domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 1.9 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails

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-fx0-f51.google.com (mail-fx0-f51.google.com
  [209.85.161.51]) by groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with
  ESMTP id oB4J8QCr007525 GroupStudy Mailer; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:08:26
  -0500
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so8621833fxm.24 for
  <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:08:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;
  s=gamma;
  h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
  :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
  bh=SAbznDHSAPnMSXsEeSEStjYnm4rO2jpXaHmDbw/Zfvw=;
  b=E9/wkk7TeBUnzwjLHfWGcfhDKSiTSTUW9UzoVBNdtGKxHI5ezOQeoX+1XYWBOj+aoP
  pLZpwUdhpde5EvqOJf+NtvY1TmVcBqGQveg2XjL0plX6qGdxB7tOKunol9ChUNCGdCjm
  3RrfGkxgaUObxiRfLJ/+l5PLSeCTed5oTJBSI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
  :cc:content-type;
  b=ZnqN7bC4jcD70KmRZOPGmZ8/jPd2N/2xA+0IfpROfUfqikwlKWzG+psYlmjnUmHvXa
  A8i8zPgm+8DHp+LWqP3WwrSSTR5Gr4HMe48WwsojBxRoGAGbYkd/fA0WZB17uHNs5EVB
  rV5TRniIxn2JhLXhYelSFlNXHfhQRBri3b/hI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.81.70 with SMTP id w6mr955001fak.18.1291489699702;
  Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.101.86 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:08:19 -0800
  (PST)
In-Reply-To: <00163683328a068a7f0496933644_at_google.com>
References: <00163683328a068a7f0496933644_at_google.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 22:08:19 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTikbz+jeVrn3OENhCBwr0fiZ3XnyEhsxACz-j9wF_at_mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OSPF as CE-PE question
From: Muhammad Anser Khan <manserkhan_at_gmail.com>
To: Usha Rani <usha2bccie_at_gmail.com>
Cc: 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

Dear Usha,

You need to create an virtual-link between CE1 to PE1 and CE2 with PE2 to
extend the routes of CE's area0 over the MPLS cloud.

Regards,
Anser

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:35 PM, <mikhail.detochkin_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 - 22:08:19 ART