Because you can never guarantee what addresses your customers are
going to use, and you can't force them
to renumber, because they're paying you. And adopting a new strategy
for each customer that breaks you just
isn't scaleable.
On Aug 20, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Brandon Price wrote:
Other than just saying "its bad" can you give some specifics as to the
problems you've run into using private addresses for PE-CE links? As
long as the SP hands out unique addresses across all of the links, what
does it matter whether they are "private" or "public" ?
Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian
MacNevin
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Andy Saykao; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS VPN Question about PE-CE - Private or Public
IP?
Agree with everyone who's agreed with point 5 :)
I've been in MPLS SPs for years and regretted every time I've seen
somebody try and use private
space for management.
On Aug 20, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Everton da Silva Marques wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Andy Saykao wrote:
Just wondering from those in the know, whether it's best practice to
implement public or private IP's for the PE-to-CE link. What's
everyone
using and why?
There is a kind of best practices in a presentation from
Cisco Networkers 2008. Slide 83 content is reproduced below.
Cisco Networkers 2008
BRKIPM-2001: Deploying MPLS VPN Networks
by Dirk Schroetter
Best Practices
1. Use RR to scale BGP; deploy RRs in pair for the redundancy
Keep RRs out of the forwarding paths and disable CEF (saves memory)
2. RT and RD should have ASN in them i.e. ASN: X
Reserve first few 100s of X for the internal purposes such as
filtering
3. Consider unique RD per VRF per PE, if load sharing of VPN traffic
is required
4. Don't use customer names as the VRF names; nightmare for the NOC.
Use simple combination of numbers and characters in the VRF name
For example: v101, v102, v201, v202, etc. Use description.
5. PE-CE IP address should come out of SP.s public address space to
avoid overlapping
Use /31 subnetting on PE-CE interfaces
6. Define an upper limit at the PE on the number of prefixes
received from the CE for each VRF or neighbor
Max-prefix within the VRF configuration; Do suppress the inactive
routes.
Max-prefix per neighbor within the BGP VRF af (if BGP on the PE-CE)
Hope this helps,
Everton
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
