The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2005-May> msg00028



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Re: Addressing PE/ CE Links - 2547

  • From: Truman Boyes <truman@suspicious.org>
  • Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:37:10 +1200
  • Cc: <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • Resent-Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:27:45 -0400
  • X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.45

On 20/05/2005, at 2:26 AM, MPLS Buchaill wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> There seems to be mixed opinion on what addressing should be  
> applied to PE-CE links for MPLS VPN. I know Jim Guichard  
> highlighted a lot of the common issues in his draft in 2003 but was  
> wondering what practical experience has shown?
>
>
>
> Just wondering what is the general experience and common practice  
> on a large scale, RFC1918, customer or registered?
>
>
>
> D
Many large carriers that I have worked with use private addressing  
for PE-CE links in MPLS VPNs. If the VPN is to provide internet  
connectivity, they will generally number the links with allocated and  
registered address space.

As long as there is communication between the carrier and the  
customer and service recommendations are given, the odds of address  
conflict on various /31 prefixes is quite low.

Truman

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml

MPLScon 2005 - May 16-19, NYC, NY
http://www.mplscon.com/