Re: mpls pe-ce

Ah, ummm
The SP IGP should never mix with customer's IGPs. Granted.
But VRFs should be able to fence them, and you should have no problem
running any IGP on the VRF. Any problems there are the SP responsibility.

In MPLS vpn world, having any IGP extended to the PE vrf does not
make it an imperfect world.

-Carlos

Daniel Dib @ 10/03/2011 10:06 -0300 dixit:
> On to, mar 10, 2011 at 13:59:23, Carlos G Mendioroz wrote:
>> ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> Subject: Re: mpls pe-ce
>>
>> Your own network ? I thought the idea of VPN was to extend the
>> customer's network, and that SP meant SERVICE provider... LOL.
>>
>> But in the end, it's about contracts, agreed.
>> Two parties agreeing to something, if it were a perfect world.
>> LOL again.
>>
>> -Carlos
>
> Yes, it is the service providers job to extend the VPN but if you cannot
> assure that your own IGP is stable then you risk messing up all of your
> customers networks since you carry the next-hops in IGP. In a perfect world
> customer prefixes shall only be carried in BGP and next-hops/loopbacks in
> IGP. Sometimes we need to make exceptions but you should be aware of the
> risk you are taking by doing so.
>
> /Daniel
>

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net