The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Miguel Cros Cecilia <miguel.cros@gmail.com>]

We use internally in our network Multi-AS/Inter-AS Option A and also in
other areas of our network we use Option B. When the number of 
VRF increases, Option A starts to manifest its
limitations, specially in the re-establishment of BGP sessions, when we
have some device failure.

We would prefer to configure Option B, because we'd need only an
MP-eBGP session, but the problem is that for specific VRF's we need to
deploy FW in between the PE/ASBR. 


So the purpose of these E-mail is just to know if anyone makes sense
the proposal that we are making to our router vendors (Cisco/Juniper):

Lets use Option B for signally all the VRF's prefixes, but through route-maps/policy-statements
associated to the MP-eBGP session, let us allow to change selectively
(only for specific VRF) the forwarding path to interfaces assigned to
individual VRF's.
 
Some of VRF traffic would follow the MPLS path (Option B) and other would go through the IP path.
The framework is there. There are even command to set the IP next-hop,
but it doesn't work because it seems not to be designed for this
scenario. 

The advantages would be having the scalability of Option B, and the
flexibility of Option A, that allows the use of only IP devices (FW,
Bandwidth Mgmt,etc).


Regards