Thanks all for your responses. I wanna know if there is any technology that we could imagine it as MPLS-VPN over MPLS-VPN ?
Regards, Mohammad On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Nick Bonifacio <[email protected]> wrote: > My first thought was DMVPN as well. I know running GETVPN over MPLS can > cause some issues and you need to do tweaking with tcp adjust-mss and mtu, > which would also apply to DMVPN. Multipoint GRE would also (sort of) > eliminate the need to do redistribution to and from the provider AS if you > really wanted to get around it. > > Also, I seem to remember someone running BGP over DMVPN with the hub as a > route reflector. I will try to find the article. > > > > *From:* Mohammad Moghaddas <[email protected]> > *To:* Adam Booth <[email protected]> > *Cc:* CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:43 AM > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Multi-VRF CE > > Hi Adam, > > thanks for your reply. > Unfortunately this is the only SP which is able to provide MPLS-VPN service > on those locations. > You are right, one of the issues on tunnels is exactly MTU (and TCP MSS) > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Adam Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Mohammad, > > > > I guess if you aren't in a position to get your SP's account manager to > > want to keep a ~300 site customer happy and you cant get an alternate > > provider, perhaps if you can handle the MTU impact of the additional > > tunnels, could you look at tunnelling over the SP network building a hub > > and spoke topology using something like DMVPN? It's not really covered > in > > the R&S blueprint and falls under the Security banner if you want to read > > up on it. > > > > Cheers, > > Adam > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Mohammad Moghaddas < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi. > >> > >> We have 290 sites over an MPLS cloud having IP reach-ability to each > >> other. > >> The topology is as below: > >> > >> different VRFs<--site1--PE1---"P routers" ---PE2---site2-->different > VRFs > >> > >> So the provider has established the connectivity between all sites. > >> > >> As the topology, we have different networks on each site, and each > network > >> requires isolated routing-table and connectivity to the same VRF on the > >> other sites. > >> Unfortunately the provider's policies doe not allow having sub-if to PEs > >> and having eBGP to PE and exchange our VRFs' labels and the routing > table. > >> I mean that they just only provide the base connectivity to other sites > >> without any isolation between our local VRFs. > >> I should point that our topology is Hub'n'Spoke. So I imagined > >> implementing > >> one tunnel from each site for each VRF to the hub. I know that this not > an > >> efficient way. > >> > >> So, what's your opinion? > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> M. Moghaddas > >> _______________________________________________ > >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > please > >> visit www.ipexpert.com > >> > >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com > >> > >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > > > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
