[c-nsp] CE routes

[harbor235]

I see, PE to CE routing protocols are segmented from PE to P routing
protocols. So for PE to PE traffic,
the ingress LSR only needs to know how to route to the egress PE router via
IGP label, once there the VPN label   forwards traffic to the proper VRF.
The next -hop for the desination route comes into play once at the egress
PE?

Mike



On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak <ip at ioshints.info> wrote:

> CE-PE subnets are part of VRF and thus cannot be inserted into the core
> IGP,
> only in MP-BGP. It's way easier (and more scalable) to redistribute them
> than to list them in the per-VRF BGP configuration.
>
> Ivan
>
> http://www.ioshints.info/about
> http://blog.ioshints.info/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: harbor235 [mailto:harbor235 at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:51 PM
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [c-nsp] CE routes
> >
> > I was just reading best practices for MPLS implementations
> > regarding CE to CE connectivity issues, specifically, CE to
> > CE pings. The document stated that redistributing connected
> > PE routes into BGP was the preferred method to ensure CE to
> > CE ping success as well as other connectivity issues. This
> > will inject the route for the PE to CE interface into BGP.I
> > am not sure I agree,  why not explicitly define which
> > networks to advertise in the IGP, an IGP in MPLS networks is
> > supposed to hold all infrastructure routes anyway. Are these
> > interfaces considered infrstructure or customer interfaces?
> > One reason may be to reduce the number of infrastructure
> > routes in the IGP because of the potential for many CE to PE
> > interfaces, let BGP handle the large number of routes?
> >
> > I am curious which method is employed in the wild, also I am
> > not sure all connected routes should be advertised from the
> > PE, e.g. management/infrastructure interfaces etc ...
> >
> > What are your thoughts and how is it being done?
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
>
>