BGP is used between the CE (S8) and the router, text is saying that configuration for PE to CE (SW9) should be similar. Does that means that we should defined another neighbors connected to a different Autonomous System on PE and used the PE as a BGP transit.
More important, is there any advantage of using BGP here or we could used EIGRP to redistribute OSPF route from S8 VPN 1 to S9 VPN 1.
In this example, you could have used any routing protocol to carry the routes between CE and PE routers. However, if an IGP protocol was used then a separate instance for each VRF would need to be run both on the CE and PE routers. That could be perceived as a disadvantage - configuring and running possibly many instances of an IGP protocol. And if you think of the added complexity if, say, S8 spoke OSPF while S9 spoke EIGRP and PE needed to run both OSPF and EIGRP over the same VRF and perform mutual redistribution... you get the point.
Using BGP will allow you to carry routes from all VRFs in a single BGP process between CE and PE routers. Especially the PE will benefit greatly - instead of running multiple IGP instances (possibly even different protocols), it will run just a single BGP process. BGP also has its advantages with its large set of route manipulation and filtering tools.
Thanks for your help, as usual this is quite appreciate. I think I got the point, Only one BGP process will be required on the PE router even if this process will announce diffrerent route on different vlan following the association between vrf and vlan. Like you say, running OSPF between SW8 to PE and EIGRP between SE9 and PE would required the PE to run one OSPF instance for the two VRF connect to S8 and one EIGRP instance for the two VRF connect to S9 and perform the redistribution.
Question: Does this solution would scale for few others PE if we run full mesh iBGP.
Regarding the scalability question: I am not sure if I understand the question correctly. If you are asking how scalable is using the iBGP full mesh in this network with a couple of added PEs then I would say it boils down to the scalability of the iBGP itself. In a small, preferably stable network with just a few BGP speakers, running iBGP full mesh is just fine. As the network grows larger, the iBGP full mesh becomes limiting, so usually a route reflector is deployed to decrease the complexity of BGP configuration and peering.
I am not sure about the feasibility of such an arrangement if a backbone consists of 3 or 4 PE router. Could we used full mesh iBGP where the trunk are define the same on all PE or could we have a Route Reflector arrangement.
With XR 4.2.0 the ASR9000 is releasing a new line of hardware models. This amongst others is the RSP440, the next generation RSP with faster switch fabric along with Typhoon based Linecards, the next generation network processor.
The Cisco EPN system incorporates a network architecture designed to consolidate multiples services on a single Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) transport network. This network is designed primarily based on...
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?