Ross, > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:19 PM > > To: Ross Halliday; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] MPLS labels with VPNv4 blackholing > > > > the RR is not generating any labels, it's the originator (i.e. the PE) > > who does. > > > > ... > > > > I guess all of the routes are originated by a specific PE in the > > network? You could use per-vrf labels there (and per-vrf labels should > > also work on 7600 and ASR1k and others, haven't checked).. > > For our real subscriber routes, yes. However I'm injecting the routes to be > blackholed on the route reflectors themselves,
well.. strictly speaking then you turn the RR into a PE as you have a VRF configured and inject prefix there.. I would possibly investigate using a distinct router, just to keep the functionality/features on the RR clean.. defining a VRF on a vpnv4 RR is quite unusual (not impossible, but very seldomly deployed). > and sending those to PEs in the style at > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/blackhole.pdf and > https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-14618. At any rate, I'm surprised > that two prefixes that dump to Null0 get separate labels. The FEC should be > identical, no? Well, the FEC for vpnv4 is defined by the originator of the routes, and with per-prefix the FEC is defined to be different ;-) So if you're worried about the distinct labels, you need to originate the pfx on a platform/version which supports per-vrf label feature. Looks like recent 15.1S images support per-vrf labels on the c7200.. oli _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
