[c-nsp] IS-IS as PE-CE protocol

[Nick Cutting]

But I think the discussion is not the CE-PE IGP relationship that gets put into a L3VPN, then tunneled via MPLS, but connecting the CE to his internal IS-IS (possibly not in a VRF) that is used to connect his BGP loopbacks in his SP network?

I may have the wrong end of the stick

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Nathan Lannine
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:11 AM
To: Aaron Gould <aaron1 at gvtc.com>
Cc: Cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS as PE-CE protocol

This message originates from outside of your organisation.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Aaron Gould <aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:

> Which reminds me... I recall if pe-ce is bgp, then redis into l3vpn is 
> natural and automatic.... true ?
>
> -Aaron
>
>
As an implementer of MPLS/L3VPN in the enterprise, this is very interesting to me because I am all IGP internally.  I sort of assumed that in the provider space that L3VPNs would be accomplished the same way, with an IGP as PE-CE protocol for L3VPN, but here we are.  So, in the case of BGP as PE-CE protocol and a small client AS, do you all in the provider space require multiple private ASNs per VPN?  I mean (blatant free training request here) how does this get handled by the VPN customer?

Just navel gazing here, but I am wondering if there would be any benefit to me running BGP as my own PE-CE protocol.

Thank you,
Nathan
_______________________________________________
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/