[c-nsp] Running OSPF on PE-to-CE

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 05:24:26PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2011 04:02:38 PM ar wrote:
> 
> > Can somebody tell me why this route is being prefered?
> 
> Not really an answer to your question, but along the same 
> subject:
> 
> Just curious how many of you are still supporting IGP PE-CE 
> routing protocols.

We do, if(!) we maintain the CPE - because my team knows EIGRP much
better than BGP, and, well, "because we like EIGRP".  It has all the
knobs for filtering and tweaking that you need on an PE-CE link, has 
nice fast-failover characteristics, and "just works".

Now, EIGRP-in-VRF seems to be fairly buggy (some commands are accepted
but not stored, and don't actually *do* anything - like "static neighbors
on interfaces with broken multicast" - and depending on IOS subrelease,
it sometimes doesn't work at all in surprising ways), so we went OSPF-in-VRF
there.  Again, mostly due to "the engineers working on this felt more
comfortable with OSPF than with BGP".

But indeed, having the whole zoo of routing protocols here is a strong
argument for throwing them all out and going with BGP all the way to
the edge.  (Most likely to discover that some of the CPEs will have
EIGRP support but require "Advanced IP Services" for BGP...)

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20111016/71024e5b/attachment-0001.pgp>