I don't think sham link will work in this case either. You are running ebgp with provider A? You are only concerned that your ibgp routes from other sites, right? change the ibgp administrative distance to be lower than 110 might work for you.
Schilling On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, null zeroroute <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
