RE: mpls pe-ce

In the end it all depends on your service contract. The SP technically can support all the IGPs on the PE-CE link, i.e. RIP, OSPF, EIGRP, and IS-IS, but they typically won't. When you're shopping for the service, the SP will tell you "we'll support only RIP", or "we'll support only RIP or OSPF". Just like in a BGP peering arrangement, the SP's are usually not very flexible in changing their policies to support a particular customer's requirements. If the CE isn't already running the IGP that the SP wants to support, it's up to the CE to redistribute between the internal routing domain and routes coming from the MPLS L3 VPN.

HTH,

Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security)
bmcgahan_at_INE.com
 
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.INE.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Jeferson Guardia
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:57 AM
To: aundra browning
Cc: Aaron; <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Subject: Re: mpls pe-ce

Just from a point of view, if I was a Service Provider offering this service
and if I knew my customer doesnt know well how to manage his network and if
the design was really simple, yes, why not to go with RIPv2 ? At the end,
yes, it pretty much depends on the design and you can go with anything, for
really complex networks with potential growth in the future, OSPF scales
well, so, many aspects we have to take in consideration before choosing what
protocol to stick with, but as stated, they are all VRF aware and they all
do the same job, but in a different way, with 3 single commands you can get
RIPv2 running on the CE side and it is really simple for a customer with not
much knowledge.

- JG
CCIE #28157

2011/3/9 aundra browning <browningaundra_at_gmail.com>

> I wouldn't agree that Cisco would recommend RIP as best practice for a
> PE-CE routing protocol. Every IGP - RIP, OSPF, EIGRP and ISIS (12.0S is
> limited) is VRF aware and is supported as a PE-CE routing protocol in IOS. I
> don't know where the original quote was pulled from, but each IGP above can
> be used. It's also the reason there are extensions made to BGP to carry the
> attributes (via extended communities) from these IGP's across an MPLS cloud
> (metrics, route-types, etc.) The decision on which IGP to use will always
> vary according to design requirements - like anything else.....
>
> - AB
> CCIE #21901
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Jeferson Guardia <jefersonf_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Those are best practices, cisco thinks: the ce side is really simple and
>> small, then RIP does the job, it is simple to setup and troubleshoot but at
>> the end of the day any igp would accomplish it, is really up to you to
>> decide.
>>
>> Sent using my Iphone
>>
>> Em 09/03/2011, C s 12:28, "Aaron" <aaron1_at_gvtc.com> escreveu:
>>
>>
>> > " A service provider edge (PE) router can learn an IP prefix from a
>> customer
>> > edge (CE) router by static configuration, through a BGP session with the
>> CE
>> > router, or through the routing information protocol (RIP) exchange with
>> the
>> > CE router. "
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Is it just me or have y'all also read statements like this before? It
>> seems
>> > that I see RIP mentioned a lot when speaking of an IGP route prot that
>> can
>> > be used from CE to PE...does this mean I can't use eigrp, ospf ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Jeferson Guardia
CCIE #28157
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net