[c-nsp] BGP vs OSPF (CE -> PE)

[Jon Harald Bovre]

You will need a sham-link between PE A and PE B to make the traffic engineering to work. 
I Always favour BGP (or static) as the PE-CE protocol. Gives better control of my routing.

Jon Harald Bøvre 

----- Opprinnelig melding -----
Fra: "CiscoNSP List" <cisconsp_list at hotmail.com>
Sendt: ‎18.‎06.‎2014 07:29
Til: "cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Emne: [c-nsp] BGP vs OSPF (CE -> PE)

Hi Everyone,

We typically use OSPF (CE/PE) so customer can advertise routes into their VRF - We have issues with failover (When customer site has 2 links) but the links go to different PE"s of ours (We only have agg's from carriers on certain PE's)..

eg.

Customer(vrf) has a site(foo) connected to PE A + B (PE B is "failover" link)

Same customer has another site(bar) connected to PE B.

Traffic from site "bar" to "foo" will go via PE B, which is not what we want...we have manipulated this to work via longer subnets (i.e. failover link advertising a /23 instead of a /24), but this isnt always feasible.

Would BGP(Instead of OSFP) help in this situation...i.e. Can we manipulate how the routes are advertised(PE A/B) within the vrf more easily if the CE advertises via BGP vs OSPF? Or any other suggestions?

Cheers

 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________
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/