Hi, On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:39:49PM +0100, Andrew Miehs wrote: > I am currently using "distribute-list prefix in" on the PES to > protect EIGRP process. Without this, the "other" PE will end up > learning the default route via EIGRP from the first PE.
We've used EIGRP on PE-CE links in the past and used prefix-list filters
incoming and outoing to enforce policy - which worked as well as for BGP,
and it's about the same amount of config work, so I think that approach
is fine.
We did have enormous problems with EIGRP in VRFs in various 12.3/12.4
and also 12.2SX IOS versions - missing features (like static neighbours
to work around multicast-broken L2 links) and just plain "not working",
so you need to test that whether it works for you - no experience in
doing so on an ASR...
OTOH, using eBGP as PE-CE protocol has one significant and HUGE advantage:
everybody is doing this, so it gets tested, and bugs get fixed.
[..]
> PS: and use eBGP is not helpful :)
Yeah, I've seen that, but given the lack of proper testing and feature
completeness on lots of things that come out of Cisco without "everybody is
using it!" demand behind it, it *might* be worth another thought.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgpgGgPtqyUvn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
