We only manage the CE devices, not the PE's. I just reviewed the sham-link documentation, and my understanding is that the provider needs to configure sham links between each PE over their backbone. I don't think they'll support this. I'm rather certain that they will only support BGP or standard redistribution.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Saxon Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I re-read your problem. Sham links may be a solution to look at, > if you control the right pieces of equipment. You can also mess with the AD > of OSPF external routes versus OSPF internal routes but this is probably a > Bad Idea(TM) (and my testing of this a few years ago showed it didn't have > the desired result). > > ______________________________ > Saxon Jones > > Email: [email protected] > Telephone: (780) 669-0899 > Toll-free: (866) 701-8022 > United Kingdom: 0(1315)168664 > > > > 2010/1/13 Saxon Jones <[email protected]> > > If I understand your question properly, why not just change the >> administrative distance of the eBGP routes to something less than 110. >> ______________________________ >> Saxon Jones >> >> Email: [email protected] >> >> >> 2010/1/13 null zeroroute <[email protected]> >> >>> I'm having a problem trying to figure out a way to get eBGP learned >>> routes >>> (from a layer-3 VPN MPLS WAN provider) into our internal OSPF, so that >>> the >>> routes learned via the provider are preffered over the internally learned >>> OSPF routes. >>> >>> No matter where the BGP-->OSPF redistribution point is, if it's the PE or >>> CE, the routes will still show up (by default) as OSPF external, and will >>> never be prefferred. >>> >>> The provider who's path we prefer will only run BGP. We would like to >>> use >>> OSPF everywhere if possible, for several reasons. >>> >>> WAN provider A is a layer-3 VPN MPLS network, and is the prefferred path. >>> WAN provider B is a layer-2 VPN MPLS network over which we run OSPF. >>> Provider B's network is inferior at times and we use it as a backup. >>> >>> The equipment where the eBGP peering relationsips exist is a mix of 7600, >>> 3800, 2800, 1800, 6500, 3750, 3550. >>> >>> We considered GRE over the providers network however we then wind up with >>> 25+ tunnels at each location, and that just grows as each new site is >>> added, >>> not to mention some potential issues regarding throughput with a GRE >>> tunnel >>> in the path. >>> >>> Is there a way to redistribute BGP into OSPF so that the routes can be >>> anything but OSPF external? >>> >>> I have not found a way to do this yet, and was wondering if it's even >>> possible, or if I'm missing something obvious. Any suggestions >>> appreciated. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
