Joe,
This is broken configuration. What it actually shows is how CE2 & CE3
can be spokes but nothing else behind then - empty VPN spoke sites :).
If you notice from the CE1 config this is the only site which actually
tries to inject some VPN EIGRP routes (by redistributing them into RIP)
for this VPN so it is a hub by nature :). In addition I find this
interesting that all three PE-CE numbered links use RIP as well as
identical address subnet ...
So cisco as well as juniper still requires two links betwee PE & hub CE
- at least until we implement knob of not being able to export route
without putting this in the vrf & such a dst would not have an aggregate
label.
Rgs,
R.
> Joe Lin wrote:
>
> I am crossposting this on both cisco-nsp and mpls-ops, since this is a
> cisco question yet it is related to mpls :)
>
> I was looking for sample config for Hub and Spoke topology on cisco's
> website and I saw some at
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/rtrmgmt/vpnsc/mpls/2_0/p
> rov_gd/pgmplsa.htm#xtocid152192
>
> I was all excited!! And also was puzzled that in Cisco-land, you only
> need 1 interface for the Hub-PE-to-CE connectivity as oppose to Juniper
> where you need two (a spoke instance, and a hub instance).
>
> So I cut and pasted the configs from the link above (instead of Frame
> Relay interface, I used Ethernet interfaces), but I couldn't get it to
> work :(. Logically it should've worked. The only thing I can think of
> is that there's something about Frame Relay interfaces that I am
> overlooking..
>
> The topology is
>
> !! Topology:
> !!
> !! CE1---PE---CE2
> !! |
> !! CE3----
>
> PE - rsp-pv-mz.120-17.ST3.bin on Cisco7505
> CE1 - rsp-pv-mz.121-12.bin on Cisco7505
> CE2,3 - c7200-p-mz.120-17.ST3.bin on Cisco7200series
>
> The Hub-CE contained routes from both of the spoke CEs, which is
> correct.
>
> However, the Spoke-CEs only contain routes of the Hub CE, but not of the
> other Spoke CE (CE2, CE3).
>
> I did a # sh ip bgp vpnv4 all on the PE, and a # sh ip cef vrf
> VRF_NAME.. the output matched what the CEs were suppose to get.
>
> Logically thinking, by looking at the configuration, CE1 should've
> exported the routes right back out to the spoke route-targets, (CE2,
> CE3). But it just wasn't happening.
>
> I went ahead and create extra import/export statements where all VRF's
> imported both route-targets (hub, and spoke), essentially making this a
> fully-meshed topology.
>
> At this point everyone was happy, every CE got their routes! Which, I
> don't understand, because CE1 doesn't know whether it is a hub or spoke
> CE router, its job is to send/receive routes.
>
> I even tried OSPF as the PE-CE routing protocol, thinking maybe RIPv2
> wasn't cool enough to handle the job.. The same result occurred.
>
> However, I did not try a topology of
>
> !! Topology:
> !!
> !! CE1---PE---PE2---CE2
> !! |
> !! CE3----|
>
> Where PE is the HubPE, and PE2 is the spoke-PE.
>
> So.. what am I doing wrong? Can someone send me some cisco configs
> that they have tried out that works?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Joe
>
> -------
> The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
> Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:01 EDT