Re: BGP to OSPF Redistribution w/ Sham-Link

Yeah it works fine without redistributing BGP into OSPF.

My theory is that because the Sham-Link is up, LSAs are flooded and reach
the CE without any problems.

However, all of the labs, documentation etc show otherwise (redistribution
of BGP into OSPF), which simply isn't necessary in my opinion. I'm just
curious if anyone else has noticed this? Of course, if you aren't using a
sham-link, redistribution of BGP into OSPF is necessary.

-Yuri

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com>wrote:

> What happened when you labbed it up? Did it work? :-)
>
> --
> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>
> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
>
> Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:09, Yuri Bank <yuribank_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm curious if this is really necessary? I've done this in my lab and it
> > seems to work fine. I understand that you MUST redistribute OSPF into BGP
> on
> > your PE, so that appropriate VPN labels are advertised to the remote PE.
> > However, I see no reason to redistribute BGP into OSPF, since the LSAs
> are
> > getting advertised through the sham-link, and the CE routers will have a
> > complete LinkState Database from that.
> >
> > Is there anything that I'm missing?
> >
> > -Yuri
> >
> >
> > 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 Tue Oct 11 2011 - 11:53:39 ART