The MPLS-OPS Archive

["M. ELK" <elkou141061@hotmail.com>]

Miguel

Not very clear how U could achieve this .
If Possible , pls explain in little bit details how routing and data 
forwarding should work.
If possible , pls post the reply of manufacturer on the validity of this 
request .

As far as i understood :

the MP-eBGP is labeled , ie: a Label is advertised for each VPN IPv4 Prefix 
by the ASBR so How U could change the next-hop address ??
U could change the default next-hop address only if U are going to advertise 
the same label recieved for the same VPN prefix .ex: The case of RR  in 
option C where the label advertised in Mp-eBGP is the label recieved in 
MP-iBGP for the same VPN prefix .

Why not :
Say VRF A , is the VRF  where U want an IP path .
U config VRF A in the ASBR and assign an interface or sub-interface as 
option A .
U disable the deafult filtering on the ASBR MP-iBGP  (now all VPN IPV4  are 
imported ).
U apply filter on the MP-eBGP to prevent VPN prefix of VRF A to be 
advertised .

       ASBR1--------------Mp-eBGP-----ASBR2
          |                                       |
          |---e-BGP for VRF A-- FW------|



Brgds
>From: Miguel Cros Cecilia <miguel.cros@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Miguel Cros Cecilia <miguel.cros@gmail.com>
>To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
>Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: Inter-AS Provider Option A+Option B
>Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 15:34:08 +0200
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

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