[j-nsp] MPLS TE Question

[Ivan Ivanov]

Hi Paul,

Those two commands moves the LSP routes from inet.3 to inet.0. As the first
one leaves them in inet.3, the second one not. In this way they are used for
all IP traffic, because by default the LSP routes are with lower metric. In
normal VPN MPLS core you don't need this as all you need to be resolved by
LSP routes are the iBGP next-hop. That is why the default command is 'mpls
traffic-engineering bgp' which is not seen in the configuration. This means
that only BGP routes are resolved by inet.3 first and then by inet.0.

Hope this helps!
Cheers!



On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 16:27, Paul Stewart <paul at paulstewart.org> wrote:

> Hi there.
>
>
>
> I'm trying to understand the advantage of using "mpls traffic-engineering
> bgp-igp-both-ribs" versus "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp".  Is there an
> advantage to loading up both tables that I am missing?
>
>
>
> Our goal is LSP mesh, iBGP, OSPF, OSPFv3, l2vpn, and l3vpn.  With what I
> can
> understand so far in our partial deployment there is no need to loading up
> both RIB tables . ?
>
>
>
> Thanks folks,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>



-- 
Best Regards!

Ivan Ivanov