[c-nsp] Using EoMPLS instead of end to end VLAN

[Antonis Vosdoganis]

Dear Mattias



I will follow your recommendation.

With MPLS things are a little bit confusing.

Many thanks to all for your assistance.



Regards

Antonis


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Mattias Gyllenvarg <
Mattias.Gyllenvarg at bredband2.se> wrote:

> Multihop BGP would give you the benefit of any redundancy you have along
> the path.
>
>
> On 10 April 2013 19:14, Antonis Vosdoganis <avosdo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We have a BGP session with a carrier delivered on ME3600-A. Because ME3600
>> is not able to carry bgp table we have create vlan 100 and we and made the
>> gigabit port access to vlan 100.
>>
>> 7609 <---------- ME3600-B <--------- ME3600-A <------- BGP SESSION
>>
>>  ME3600-A
>> vlan 100
>> name BGP_PEERING
>>
>>  interface GigabitEthernet0/1
>> description BGP_PEERING
>> switchport access vlan 100
>>
>>  ME3600-A and ME3600-B are interconnected with a trunk port.
>>
>>  ME3600-B
>> vlan 100
>> name BGP_PEERING
>>
>>  ME3600-B and 7609 are also interconnected with a trunk port
>>
>>  CISCO 7609-S
>> vlan 100
>> name BGP_PEERING
>>
>>  interface Vlan100
>> description BGP_PEERING
>> ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX 255.255.255.248
>>
>> In all trunk ports we are using mpls enabled SVIs.
>>
>>  So the vlan 100 travels all the way from ME3600-A to 7609 and the bgp
>> session is running on 7609.
>>
>>
>> I am trying to say is it possible to replace the vlan with EoMPLS and how?
>>
>>  Best Regards
>>
>>  Antonis.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best Regards*
>
> *Mattias Gyllenvarg*
> *Nätutveckling*
> Bredband2
>
> Tel: +46 406219712
>
>