Thank you - that makes more sense now.. Appreciate it.
Paul From: Ivan Ivanov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:34 AM To: Paul Stewart Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MPLS TE Question Hi Paul, Those two commands moves the LSP routes from inet.3 to inet.0. As the first one leaves them in inet.3, the second one not. In this way they are used for all IP traffic, because by default the LSP routes are with lower metric. In normal VPN MPLS core you don't need this as all you need to be resolved by LSP routes are the iBGP next-hop. That is why the default command is 'mpls traffic-engineering bgp' which is not seen in the configuration. This means that only BGP routes are resolved by inet.3 first and then by inet.0. Hope this helps! Cheers! On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 16:27, Paul Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: Hi there. I'm trying to understand the advantage of using "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp-both-ribs" versus "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp". Is there an advantage to loading up both tables that I am missing? Our goal is LSP mesh, iBGP, OSPF, OSPFv3, l2vpn, and l3vpn. With what I can understand so far in our partial deployment there is no need to loading up both RIB tables . ? Thanks folks, Paul _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Best Regards! Ivan Ivanov _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
