While conventional routing practices say to run the link state routing protocol internally, and to use the path vector protocol (i.e. BGP) externally, I agree with Danger Will. It is quite a pain to run OSPF and BGP simultaneously, especially when you have redistribution to employ and administrative distances to play with for secondary paths.
IMHO, run BGP (iBGP + eBGP) end to end and life will be much simpler. cjw > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:58:17 -0700 (PDT) > From: danger will <[email protected]> > To: "Robert Crowe \(rocrowe\)" <[email protected]>, Heath Jones > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OSPF design > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > First of all most of the mpls providers dont even support ospf as routing > protocol between the CE and the PE (and the CE most of the times is managed > by the ISP too contrary to the popular belief) . The reason why is very > debatable and there are good arguments on both sides both the ISP and > customer but wont get into them. > You probably could run ospf between your router and the CE but you will have > issues with the backup. if you dont have any backup then its fine. > I have also given this a lot of thought and the answer is just run bgp thats > the only real solution at the moment. > > O. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
