[c-nsp] ISP / MPLS "POP" design

[Phil Bedard]

If I was designing it from scratch there isn't much need for the P routers to speak BGP if there are labeled paths to the remote PEs.   Why are they VPNv4 RRs?  You do not want a full mesh between PEs or what?   How many pops are you talking about?   

Another kind of popular thing to do these days is carry the Internet table in a VRF as well.  That way your entire infrastructure is not open to the internet or your customers by default.  If you have good edge infrastructure ACLs it is kind of moot.  

Phil

> On Oct 29, 2013, at 5:53 PM, CiscoNSP List <cisconsp_list at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Hoping someone can provide some "best practice" advise on an ISP/MPLS design.
> 
> Customer's would have a mix of vrf and Internet tails
> 
> POP "A" has 2 x 7200's (PE's) and 2 x 6500's (Ps') - Both 7200's have a single IPTransit service(Full BGP table) to different upstreams.
> 
> 7200's and 6500's would be connected (physically) via a full mesh, with MPLS enabled on p-t-p links
> 
> IGP(OSPF) on all p-t-p links, and only carry loopback IP's and p-t-p link IP's
> iBGP under VPNv4 for MP-BGP (vrf IP's) with the 2 6500's as route reflectors
> 
> The part Im unsure of is the "global" iBGP (For customer "Internet" IP's) - Would the 6500's also be route reflectors here? And with regards to the full BGP tables on the 7200's, would the 7200's only send default route to the 6500's?
> 
> Any suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
>                         
> _______________________________________________
> 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/