[c-nsp] EIGRP as core routing protocol on MPLS network

[Arda Balkanay]

But with EIGRP i think you can not use LDP-IGP Synchronisation.
For a fully compliant IP/MPLS backbone i suggest you to choose OSPF or ISIS
as IGP.

On 8/24/07, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <oboehmer at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Kris Price <> wrote on Friday, August 24, 2007 1:42 PM:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been trying to find out the implications of using EIGRP to
> > distribute the loopbacks for a BGP/MPLS network instead of the usual
> > OSPF or ISIS. But either it isn't a very well covered topic or my
> > Google-foo is seriously bad.
> >
> > I've lab'ed it up in a very simple environment and for typical Layer 3
> > BGP/MPLS VPN applications everything seems to work fine as expected,
> > LDP continues distributing labels, and VPN packets are label switched
> > across the network.
> >
> > However, I assume the caveats are around using features that use
> > OSPF/ISIS for transporting additional information or for signalling,
> > e.g. perhaps taffic engineering info.
> >
> > Given there is no information on this on Google I guess it isn't
> > supported and the recommendation is simply "don't do it".
> >
> > But I'm curious, so has anyone done this in a production environment
> > for any reason, or has anything enlightening to say on the matter?
>
> you can run EIGRP as IGP within an MPLS core for L2VPN and L3VPN just
> fine. It is rarely used, but it is, to my knowledge, a supported
> configuration. As you've mentioned, the only thing which won't work is
> TE, but LDP will advertise the labels for EIGRP prefixes just fine.
>
>         oli
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>