[c-nsp] iBGP as MPLS labeling protocol

[Alireza Soltanian]

Thanks for the useful comments.

now the questions are:
which one is better?
using ibgp with RR or ebgp? consider a star topology which all spoke
routers are connected to two hub routers ( I think in ibgp approach hub
routers must be RR as well so all spokes can reach to each other via hubs)
another question is can we do inter as with AS from private range?
I also want to set routing protocol behind each bgp speaker to OSPF. so
redistribution must be considered.

Thank you
Alireza

On Jan 5, 2017 9:49 PM, <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> > Daniel Verlouw
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 9:25 PM
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:35 AM,  <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:
> > > And this is the tricky part cause you might run into bugs with
> > > next-hop-self on iBGP session in combination with RFC3107 (no one tests
> > this).
> >
> > why do you think this is an issue? Or why is it any different from
> setting NHS
> > on a labeled route which is propagated from eBGP to iBGP?
> > It's frequently used when propagating BGP-LU throughout different domains
> > in a Seamless MPLS network, which is supported (and tested) by all the
> big
> > vendors.
> >
> You're right, I totally  forgot about hierarchical MPLS in Intra-AS
> deployments, indeed in these models the ABRs are configured as RRs doing
> NHS (next-hop self) when relying routes.
> So yeah there you have it, it's supported solution :) though a bit tricky
> one.
>
> netconsultings.com
> ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>