[c-nsp] extending asr9k mpls cloud into my 7609's

[Aaron]

Thanks Phil, I was thinking about moving the existing routing within the
7609 into a vrf as you stated, and then making the default vrf/global route
table within the 7609 now be that of the asr9k ospf/mpls cloud....so you
sort of confirmed my thoughts about that.  Wow, that seems major as I sit
here pondering that.  I think I might, in the short-term, land the mpls
(pw/vpls/etc) stuff on the asr9k colo'd with the 7609 and do flow points via
traditional 1q trunk to 7609....any problems with that ?    ....then down
the road perhaps overhaul the 7609 as previously stated.....however, by then
I may have moved a bunch of stuff physically off of the 7609 and onto that
colo'd 9k, which would make it moot

Aaron


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Bedard [mailto:philxor at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:14 PM
To: Aaron; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] extending asr9k mpls cloud into my 7609's

If I understand the topology correctly, to begin with you just want to
connect the OLT/DSLAM to the 7600 via a L2 Ethernet pseudowire from a port
on the 901 terminating to a port on the 9K, correct?  That should work fine
with no real issues...

Then at some point you want to include the 7600 as part of this new MPLS
network so you can connect ports off of the 7600 via PW to other
destinations? Correct me if I'm wrong.  The simple answer to your question
is no I don't think you'll able to do what you want.  Commands like
"xconnect" used for l2vpn can't be qualified with a vrf, at least not that
I've ever seen on a Cisco. You may be better off taking what is the global
table today on the 7600s and putting it into a VRF itself, or installing
another device (which is part of the new MPLS network) to handle these new
connections versus using the 7600s.  Alternatively you could configure the
routers so only "infrastructure" routes such as loopbacks and interface
addresses exist in the IGP and filter traffic at your edge to protect those
IPs from customers if you feel the need to.




Phil 

On 4/10/12 12:56 PM, "Aaron" <aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:

>...regardless of BU cooperation, I'm gonna try to accomplish 
>cooperation between my 7609's and 9k's.. (you like that Gert)  ;)
>
> 
>
>Background - For a few years I've ran all my isp subnets (dsl and ftth) 
>off of dual 7609's running hsrp facing the customer subnets..a very 
>much collapsed IP core design with Layer 2 all the way to the customers 
>homes/businesses.  Layer 2 is in the form of various switched rings..
>
> 
>
>Now - I have a newly built mpls cloud with a ring of asr9k's and spokes 
>off of those 9k's are asr901's.  initially this is being built to 
>support cell backhaul but we are already looking at ways of using it 
>for moving off the aforementioned network.
>
> 
>
>I'll be making a 10 gig handoff connection from collocated asr9k to 
>7609 at each of those 2 core sites.this will enable any desired 
>internetworking between my two aforementioned networks
>
> 
>
>Out on the edge, I envision that if I make a connection to a FTTH OLT 
>(ftth community shelf/chassis if you aren't familiar with it) or a 
>DSLAM that now connects to a mpls cloud connected asr901 or direct to a 
>9k I could then LxVPN that traffic back into the 7609's.
>
> 
>
>Back in the core, it would seem if I extend the mpls cloud into the 
>7609's I would be able to accomplish the vpls/pw logic end to end .from 
>9k or 901 at geo location of dslam/customer/etc into the 7609.
>
> 
>
>I don't want the 7609 public ip routes comingled with the asr9k mpls 
>cloud routes.
>
> 
>
>I want that mpls/ospf 9k route table to stay untouched and only have 
>the required mpls cloud routes to be in there (perhaps this isn't much 
>different than typical mpls sp cloud designs)
>
> 
>
>IF/When I extend that mpls cloud into the 7609's it would seem that the
>7609
>would then become a PE
>
> 
>
>Question, should I isolate that mpls edge on the 7609's in a vrf ?
>
> 
>
>The 7609's are and have always been non-mpls and non-vrf 
>configured..pretty much just vanilla swich/router.  So I guess the 
>route table of my 7609's are considered to be the global route 
>table..non-vrf route table..i believe known as default vrf routing 
>table
>
> 
>
>Now, If I do that (isolating mpls edge into a vrf on the 7609) will I 
>be able to plumb/internetwork connectivity from the switching 
>plane/vlans of the 7609 into the newly extended mpls/LxVPN logic of that
7609?
>
> 
>
>Aaron
>
> 
>
> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/