Multihop BGP would give you the benefit of any redundancy you have along the path.
On 10 April 2013 19:14, Antonis Vosdoganis <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a BGP session with a carrier delivered on ME3600-A. Because ME3600 > is not able to carry bgp table we have create vlan 100 and we and made the > gigabit port access to vlan 100. > > 7609 <---------- ME3600-B <--------- ME3600-A <------- BGP SESSION > > ME3600-A > vlan 100 > name BGP_PEERING > > interface GigabitEthernet0/1 > description BGP_PEERING > switchport access vlan 100 > > ME3600-A and ME3600-B are interconnected with a trunk port. > > ME3600-B > vlan 100 > name BGP_PEERING > > ME3600-B and 7609 are also interconnected with a trunk port > > CISCO 7609-S > vlan 100 > name BGP_PEERING > > interface Vlan100 > description BGP_PEERING > ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX 255.255.255.248 > > In all trunk ports we are using mpls enabled SVIs. > > So the vlan 100 travels all the way from ME3600-A to 7609 and the bgp > session is running on 7609. > > > I am trying to say is it possible to replace the vlan with EoMPLS and how? > > Best Regards > > Antonis. > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* *Nätutveckling* Bredband2 Tel: +46 406219712 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
