Henry Bonath(he...@thebonaths.com) on 2018.10.27 19:21:15 -0400:
> Claudio -
>
> One use case where I personally ran into this need in the past is in an
> MPLS PE-CE where OSPF is running between the Provider and Customer. (L3VPN)
> One would want to redistribute the Customers OSPF routes into
Claudio -
One use case where I personally ran into this need in the past is in an
MPLS PE-CE where OSPF is running between the Provider and Customer. (L3VPN)
One would want to redistribute the Customers OSPF routes into BGP as VPNv4
prefixes into the customers VRF in the provider network.
We
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:07:32PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.17 12:44:02 +0200:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM Sebastian Benoit
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Tommy Nevtelen(to...@nevtelen.com) on 2018.10.16 15:11:51 +0200:
> > > >
open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.17 12:44:02 +0200:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> >
> > Tommy Nevtelen(to...@nevtelen.com) on 2018.10.16 15:11:51 +0200:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:21:37AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM Sebastian Benoit wrote:
>
> Tommy Nevtelen(to...@nevtelen.com) on 2018.10.16 15:11:51 +0200:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:21:37AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:13:20AM +0200, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> >
Tommy Nevtelen(to...@nevtelen.com) on 2018.10.16 15:11:51 +0200:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:21:37AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:13:20AM +0200, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Only relying on OSPF hellos effectively makes it mimic BGP with its
> > >
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:21:37AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:13:20AM +0200, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Only relying on OSPF hellos effectively makes it mimic BGP with its
> > keepalives. I will ponder the value of transporting the underlay in
> >
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:13:20AM +0200, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Only relying on OSPF hellos effectively makes it mimic BGP with its
> keepalives. I will ponder the value of transporting the underlay in
> OSPF, effectively transporting loopback peering addresses for BGP in
> OSPF. I
On 2018-10-16, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> Only relying on OSPF hellos effectively makes it mimic BGP with its
> keepalives. I will ponder the value of transporting the underlay in
> OSPF, effectively transporting loopback peering addresses for BGP in
> OSPF. I am not sure that it will make my life
Hello,
Only relying on OSPF hellos effectively makes it mimic BGP with its
keepalives. I will ponder the value of transporting the underlay in
OSPF, effectively transporting loopback peering addresses for BGP in
OSPF. I am not sure that it will make my life easier but will consider
it.
Thanks
On 2018-10-15, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> in theory. But when WAN links are composed of IPSEC and GRE (which
> does not have link state) OSPF falls to pieces as the core idea of is
> link-state.
OSPF primarily uses hellos. Link-state is also used to speed up failover
up but is not required.
There
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:49 PM Claudio Jeker wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:48:31PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> > On 15.10.18 12:58, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> > > open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.15 11:05:41 +0200:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I am trying to get
I agree, it would, be very nice.
For my case the "network inet priority 32"-hack could work, even
though it only exists in 6.4 so upgrading everything that needs it is
necessary. But as far as the future goes, rtlabels tagging of routes
in ospfd would be ideal. Having only the above hack to rely
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:48:31PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> On 15.10.18 12:58, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> > open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.15 11:05:41 +0200:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am trying to get bgpd and ospfd play nicely with route redistribution.
> > >
> > > So far
On 15.10.18 12:58, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.15 11:05:41 +0200:
Hello,
I am trying to get bgpd and ospfd play nicely with route redistribution.
So far the only way I have found that suits my need is to use
bgpd.conf network statements and rtlabels.
open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.15 11:05:41 +0200:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to get bgpd and ospfd play nicely with route redistribution.
>
> So far the only way I have found that suits my need is to use
> bgpd.conf network statements and rtlabels.
>
> So, to make ospfd learn route
Hello,
I am trying to get bgpd and ospfd play nicely with route redistribution.
So far the only way I have found that suits my need is to use
bgpd.conf network statements and rtlabels.
So, to make ospfd learn route from bgpd I use rtlabels. So in bgpd.conf:
match from set rtlabel from_bgpd
17 matches
Mail list logo
