I was just reading best practices for MPLS implementations regarding CE to CE connectivity issues, specifically, CE to CE pings. The document stated that redistributing connected PE routes into BGP was the preferred method to ensure CE to CE ping success as well as other connectivity issues. This will inject the route for the PE to CE interface into BGP.I am not sure I agree, why not explicitly define which networks to advertise in the IGP, an IGP in MPLS networks is supposed to hold all infrastructure routes anyway. Are these interfaces considered infrstructure or customer interfaces? One reason may be to reduce the number of infrastructure routes in the IGP because of the potential for many CE to PE interfaces, let BGP handle the large number of routes?
I am curious which method is employed in the wild, also I am not sure all connected routes should be advertised from the PE, e.g. management/infrastructure interfaces etc ... What are your thoughts and how is it being done? mike _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/