I have a question about a design change in our network. We currently manage our PE and CE routers and run vrf-lite on our CE routers with a T-1 connecting to the PE routers with frame-relay so we can make each subinterface a member of a different vrf.
We are getting more requests for bonded T1s, so our options are:
1.Extend MPLS/MBGP to the CE and make the connected PE a route reflector, and make that interface MLPPP.
2. Introduce MLFR FRF.16 on both sides and leave the current configuration with some small changes and design.
Problem with No. 2 is that I can't find configuration or version requisites in order to do this, and I don't know if CEF is supported with this configuration.
Does anyone have any input into pros and cons on both?
"enabling MP BGP on the CE can have a huge impact without filtering." Can you emphasize on this a bit?
My understanding is that MBGP will not install the route in its BGP database unless it has a matching route-target in its configuration, which will make it so only the configured VRFs on the CE router will be installed.
"if FR multilink is not supported in the CE platform then you can also think to use the links as separate L3 links each with one FR subif for each VRF." If I understand that correctly, this is what we currently have, how is this helpful wanting a bonded T1?
1) enabling MP BGP on the CE can have a huge impact without filtering.
vpnv4 prefixes will be imported if RT matches but before all of them are received so how much memory there is on the CE ?
2) I was suggesting to use a L3 load-balancing that can lead to the use of all T1 links up to 6 or 8 (ios dependent).
they will not be bonded but they will be used all. Load-balancing will be flow based and less smooth then with PPP multilink or FR multilink. It depends on your requirements: if it is : we want to use all the available links also a L3 load-balancing is acceptable.
Use the bgp default route-target filter command to control the distribution of Virtual Private Network (VPN) routing information through the list of VPN route-target communities.
When you use the no form of this command,
>>all received VPN-IPv4 routes are accepted by the configured router. Accepting VPN-IPv4 routes is the desired behavior for a router configured as an autonomous system border edge router or as a customer edge (CE) BGP border edge router.
I was pointing out that prefixes are received before and then imported if RT matches.
However, the total of vpnv4 prefixes accepted by your PE will be passed to the previous CE now promoted PE in option 1 scenario.
1. Introduction Internet security is important with the increasing
attacks that are happening every day. Many internet and browsing
security solutions exist, but some are not very easy to use or maybe the
question is how can I enable them? In this referen...
Cisco Software Manager Server API Guide This document describes the
programmatic interfaces, RESTful APIs, which are supported by Cisco
Software Manager Server (CSM Server). Overview CSM Server supports a set
of finite RESTful APIs. The first step to use ...
If you are using Cisco's new linux-based Cisco Software Manager server,
then you probably want to make sure there is a startup service for
it.I'll assume that you've already installed the CSM server on a
systemd-based linux system. The commands given belo...