On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Christian Meutes wrote:
> That's why I suggested to give the L3VPN customer also MPLS on the PE-CE
> link. So that just the L3VPN CE needs to have the CsC-customers eBGP nexthop
> tag.
>
> It's a while back when I played with CsC, but enabling tagging of just the
>
That's why I suggested to give the L3VPN customer also MPLS on the PE-CE
link. So that just the L3VPN CE needs to have the CsC-customers eBGP nexthop
tag.
It's a while back when I played with CsC, but enabling tagging of just the
CsC-PE prefix on the BGP session between the Parent_net-PE and the
d be best?
>
>Thanks again
>Ciao
>JC
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:41 PM
>To: JC Cockburn; 'Christian Meutes'
>Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp]
be best?
>
>Thanks again
>Ciao
>JC
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:41 PM
>To: JC Cockburn; 'Christian Meutes'
>Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp]
umber of L3VPN's might grow...
>
>Thanks guys
>Ciao
>JC
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:06 PM
>To: Christian Meutes
>Cc: JC Cockburn;
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Inter AS MPL
ao
>JC
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:06 PM
>To: Christian Meutes
>Cc: JC Cockburn;
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Inter AS MPLS hybrid thingy...
>
>Yes, so I read it as well.. But
hanks guys
Ciao
JC
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:06 PM
To: Christian Meutes
Cc: JC Cockburn;
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Inter AS MPLS hybrid thingy...
Yes, so I read it as well.. But I guess the question i
tian Meutes; JC Cockburn
Cc:
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Inter AS MPLS hybrid thingy...
Don't think this is going to work Christian. Child_net1's interface to
Parent_net is actually in the global table, so any addresses visible there
are being treated as global devices in remote parts of Chil
Yes, so I read it as well.. But I guess the question is how Child_net1
wants to interconnect with a L3VPN (not CsC) customer on Parent_net.. If
Parent_net just imports the L3VPN customer's Routes into the CsC VRF
towards Child_net (and vice versa), this would provide connectivity
between Child_net'
Hey Oli,
I read it as Child_net1 is L3VPN with MPLS enabled (CsC) but I may be wrong...
On 13.09.2012, at 11:53, "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" wrote:
> Don't think this is going to work Christian. Child_net1's interface to
> Parent_net is actually in the global table, so any addresses visible the
Don't think this is going to work Christian. Child_net1's interface to
Parent_net is actually in the global table, so any addresses visible there
are being treated as global devices in remote parts of Child_net1, not any
vpnv4/VRF addresses.
JC, you need to setup InterAS-MPLS-VPN (whichever flavor
Import&Export between the RDs and give the L3VPN-only customer also MPLS and
eBGP session between them.
On 13.09.2012, at 10:44, "JC Cockburn" wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have a weird setup/requirement as following and I need some advise
> please:
>
>
>
> Working MPLS network serving L3 VPNs (
Hi All,
We have a weird setup/requirement as following and I need some advise
please:
Working MPLS network serving L3 VPNs (lets call it Parent_net). On this
network we have one of the VPN's as CsC serving another "provider" (call it
Child_net1).
Now this provider (Child_net1) needs to commun
13 matches
Mail list logo
