[j-nsp] BGP RR in MPLS VPN

[senad palislamovic]

Scott,

I AFAIK, unless P (RR) has PE's loopbacks (if IBGP) or
physical links (whatever is BGP NH) in its inet.3
table, the VPN routes will be hidden.  Therefore, we
do need LSPs from PE to RRs.  Plz, correct me if I am
wrong.  It's been a while and can't jump on boxes
right now.

HTH,

Senad


--- Scott Morris <swm at emanon.com> wrote:

> No.  The RR will simply pass around routing
> information.  As long as the
> next-hop IP remains unchanged (PE to PE) then your
> LSPs have no need to go
> through the RR.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Scott 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Ihsan Junaidi
> Ibrahim
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 7:03 PM
> To: Juniper-NSP
> Subject: [j-nsp] BGP RR in MPLS VPN
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Referring to the following terse diagram:
> 
> PE1---P---PE2
> 
> There exists LSPs to/fro PE1 to PE2 and P functions
> as RR to both PE1 and
> PE2 as well as transit LSR. Must LSPs be created
> from the PEs to the RR and
> vice versa in order to have proper distribution of
> VPN-IPv4 routes?
> 
> --
> Thank you for your time,
> Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com