[c-nsp] Route redistribution and selection

[Joe Maimon]

Quite gorgeous. Lots to think about.

Thanks,

Joe

Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
> @Luan: Thanks for the link :))
> 
> @Joe: if you have EBGP sessions with the core MPLS VPN network, you're
> losing the BGP cost community (resulting in the EIGRP-related redistribution
> issues). It might be possible to tweak the WEIGHT attribute on the PE
> routers (the routes redistributed into BGP have very high weight and are
> thus never replaced by other BGP routes), but you'd probably need
> access-lists to select the backup routes.
> 
> Ivan
>  
> http://www.ioshints.info/about
> http://blog.ioshints.info/
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luan Nguyen [mailto:luan at netcraftsmen.net] 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:44 PM
>> To: 'Joe Maimon'; 'cisco-nsp'
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Route redistribution and selection
>>
>> You might want to check this link out:
>> http://wiki.nil.com/Multihomed_MPLS_VPN_sites_running_EIGRP
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Luan Nguyen
>> Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC.
>> http://www.netcraftsmen.net
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:04 AM
>> To: cisco-nsp
>> Subject: [c-nsp] Route redistribution and selection
>>
>> We are having a problem where routes originated by the 
>> customer because of their backup paths are preventing the 
>> mpls bgp routes from being installed and used on the PE.
>>
>> Customer has an eigrp routed network.
>>
>> We are hosting a bgp mpls network for the customer.
>>
>> At the Customer's HQ PE router, we talk eigrp to the customer.
>>
>> The customer has an alternate path to the sites served by the 
>> bgp mpls network.
>>
>> We allow redistribution of eigrp routes into bgp to advertise 
>> to the mpls bgp sites. This includes the sites known prefixes 
>> themselves, due to the potential for the backup path becoming 
>> the better/only one.
>>
>> We redistribute the bgp routes for the mpls sites into eigrp.
>>
>> Normally this is a fairly common setup and works very well, 
>> and has for quite some time with this customer.
>>
>> However, on one PE we have been having issues where the 
>> customer backup path eigrp routes are installed into the PE 
>> routing table, the bgp routes show the originated via eigrp 
>> routes as the best and used path our of both the local 
>> originated via eigrp and the P mpls bgp learned route.
>>
>> The current fix is to flap the customer eigrp connection or 
>> have the customer withdraw the backup path routes.
>>
>> The P routers and the PE routers are an ebgp connection. The 
>> eigrp route has an admin distance of 170 and the ebgp route 
>> when installed has an admin distance of 20.
>>
>> We have tried setting the weight, local preference, metric of 
>> the mpls P
>>   router prefixes to cause the route to be preferred over the 
>> redistributed locally from eigrp route.
>>
>> The PE router running rsp-jk9o3sv-mz.124-18a.bin
>>
>> Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
> 
>