Re: mpls pe-ce

isn't there something about the number of total instaces that a router can
support in some or all IGPs the reason for BGP or statics only?

--
Garry L. Baker
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Paul Negron <negron.paul_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually a majority of Carriers will support only BGP or statics. Just FYI.
> --
> Paul Negron
> CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
> Senior Technical Instructor
> www.micronicstraining.com
>
>
>
> > From: Brian McGahan <bmcgahan_at_ine.com>
> > Reply-To: Brian McGahan <bmcgahan_at_ine.com>
> > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:20:35 -0600
> > To: "ccielab_at_groupstudy.com" <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> > Conversation: mpls pe-ce
> > Subject: 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 <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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net