Thanks for all the feedback/suggestions guys.
> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:35:10 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 iBGP to RR > > > > On 5/Mar/15 19:12, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > > > Sorry, now I see I haven't made myself clear at all, I meant > > disconnected from VRFs perspective. > > Of course the box would have been reachable over OOB management > > network or via IGP. > > Of course :-). > > > > > > These are interesting numbers indeed. > > And I wanted to ask you for some time now what prefixes do you > > actually leak into the FIB to make any use of it. > > Internal iBGP routes, customer routes held in iBGP, some routes from > peers (they need to be in the FIB as we do some special things with them > re: forwarding), 0/0 and ::/0. > > > Because how I would use this is just to get the full table to the > > customer hanging off of the ME. > > We hold everything else in RAM, and just hand it off to customers via > eBGP sessions. > > > > > Anyways the problem is 20K is not that much and can easily be > > exhausted with VPN customer prefixes in which case the SD can't really > > be used. > At any rate, BGP-SD is not supported for VPN address families. > > > > > You just need to make sure you never mess up the route-map used for SD. > > If you want to be simple, a simple "route-map BLAH deny 10" is all you > need to have nothing installed in the FIB. > > Otherwise, you can create a route-map similar to what you'd do for a BGP > routing policy to decide what enters the FIB. Nothing more special than > that. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > 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/
