PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
Hash: SHA1
David J. Hughes wrote:
24/08/2006, at 3:43 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
>>
>RFC 4363 Sec 10 (commonly referred to as A, B, and C).
From operational experience, what are peoples thoughts on B vs
C? I can image that multi-hopping the C solution could
get ugly unless you have tight geographical / topological grouping of
VPN endpoints in the peer AS.
B can get messy if you need to pass lots and lots of route targets.
Lots of manual coordination between the interconnecting ASNs.
C can be more manageable if, as suggested in the RFC, the multihop
eBGP sessions are limited to RRs in each ASN.
- --
bep
PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
XgrssHiadAH5INQ9luTW5M4=
=U6oo
PGP SIGNATURE
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
archive at