-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ian MacKinnon wrote: > Kurt Bales wrote: >> Hey Guys, >> >> We are migrating our services to a MPLS VPN (on our providers network). We >> are using OSPF to route between the remote sites and the providers VRF. We >> can only seem to get the OSPF sessions to establish if we use the same OSPF >> process ID as our provider, but all the docs I can find suggest that the >> process ID only has context within the local router, and does not propogate >> outside of the router? >> >> Does anybody have any suggestions as to why this might be? >> > you are right, as far as I can recall, the RFC specs say it is local > only, but I seem to remember that in a MPLS context Cisco do use it. > I can't seem to find why at the moment, but >>From http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=391649&seqNum=2&rl=1 > NOTE > > If you want all the sites in the VPN to be in the same OSPF autonomous > system, the process ID configured for the VRF on all PE routers must be > the same. Alternatively, use the domain-id command to configure a > consistent domain ID number (by default, the domain ID corresponds to > the OSPF process ID).
See: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/9.html#q36 http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6350/products_command_reference_chapter09186a0080446b1b.html#wp1000027 - -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDArTE1XcgMgrtyYRAv4lAJ42LL/K+dbPjRjNuvHtzsB/SibfYQCbBD3F JkVMTEUtu1AkH0dkqknLKhQ= =tdo7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
