[c-nsp] MPLS InterAS Drafts/RFC

[Bruce Pinsky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David J. Hughes wrote:
> 
> On 24/08/2006, at 3:43 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
> 
>>
>> RFC 4363 Sec 10 (commonly referred to as Options A, B, and C).
> 
> From operational experience, what are peoples thoughts on Option B  vs 
> Option C?  I can image that multi-hopping the Option C solution could
> get ugly unless you have tight geographical / topological grouping of
> VPN endpoints in the peer AS.
> 

Option B can get messy if you need to pass lots and lots of route targets.
   Lots of manual coordination between the interconnecting ASNs.

Option C can be more manageable if, as suggested in the RFC, the multihop
eBGP sessions are limited to RRs in each ASN.


- --
=========
bep

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE7i2iE1XcgMgrtyYRAk/wAJ4uPF34kNiR3PiCLpQJQ+gSgKqBuwCeLWIX
XgrssHiadAH5INQ9luTW5M4=
=U6oo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----