Re: Question with mpls layer 3 vpn.

Hi Yuri,

My confusion was that can we use Bgp for signalling the transport label
instead of Mpls ?

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Yuri Bank <yuribank_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> It sounds like you are talking about Inter-AS option C?
>
> If you are doing Inter-AS VPN, you can exchange labels for the PE
> looppbacks via SAFI 4, which means your IPV4 routes can include
> labels. But the LSP from your PE to ASBR is still going to be signaled
> via LDP ( or RSVP).
>
> I'm a little confused about what you're trying to accomplish. Does
> this answer your question?
>
> -Yuri
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:03 AM, rakesh madupu <raaki.88_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I have a question with mpls layer 3 vpn. I have been reading layer 3 vpns
> > and been implementing them with the help of Mpls. As many of you are
> aware
> > that mpls provides transport label over the vpn label in the P routers.
> >
> > Now , I have been reading on implementing bgp to advertise labels for
> > routes ? family inet labeled-unicast
> > Can any one of you shed me some light on my understanding below
> >
> > 1. Can I use this specific address family in order to advertise labels
> > 2. I have read and used this particular family in CoC and InterAs
> options.
> > 3. My question is purely with respect to replacing the Lsp from one pe to
> > remote pe by Mpls and use Bgp for transport ?
> > 4. Am i missing something which is very basic? Please guide me if so
> >
> > Have a great weekend.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Any Fool can Know The Point is to Understand - Einstein
> >
> > www.cciematrix.com
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
Any Fool can Know The Point is to Understand - Einstein
www.cciematrix.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net