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

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Victor,

ISIS has analogy to OSPF down bit integrated if this was your question. But
do check with your implementation to make sure if it supports ISIS leaking.

PE-CE ISIS is inheriting loop prevention which was defined for ISIS route
leaking between levels in RFC2966

" This document redefines this high-order bit in the default metric

   field in TLVs 128 and 130 to be the up/down bit."




On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM Victor Sudakov <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su> wrote:

> Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A protocol designed to speak between 2 different autonomous systems.
> > > >
> > > > If that is not an option, not using a routing protocol is also a good
> > > > idea, i.e., static routing.
> > >
> > > Well, the Internet is full of examples and recommendations of an IGP
> > > (most often OSPF) being used between PE and CE, so it must be common
> > > practice. In fact, OSPF even has special enhancements for this very
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You're not my immediate competitor, so I'll advise you not to run an
> IGP
> > > > with a customer.
> > >
> > > Again, it seems a common practice to run an IGP with a customer to
> > > import the customer's routes into the provider's MPLS network.
>
> > Yes - the examples are there on the net for most BGP resistant customers
> > and non managed CPEs  ... But as others already said all biggest SPs
> which
> > are still offering L3VPNs are only doing BGP and static.
>
> Still, the answer to my initial and direct question about IS-IS is...
> "yes" or "no"?
>
> --
> Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
> 2:5005/49 at fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>