[j-nsp] MPLS TE Question

[Paul Stewart]

Thank you - that makes more sense now.. Appreciate it.

 

Paul

 

 

From: Ivan Ivanov [mailto:ivanov.ivan at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:34 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MPLS TE Question

 

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