Re: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-03.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Just to add one point I forgot to mention - You can also enable and use
Inter-as option "*AB"*

Protection as good as in option A with inherent native scalability of
option B. Has been supported and deployed for years ...

Thx,
R.

REF:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/mp_ias_and_csc/configuration/xe-16/mp-ias-and-csc-xe-16-book/mpls-vpn-inter-as-option-ab.html


On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:08 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > Gyan> The primary use case is for inter as opt a or b flood of routes
> and there it is very difficult to control
> > in either scenario as it is going between administrative domains.
>
> For inter-as option A you should use prefix limit between VRFs.
>
> For inter-as option B & C it is very seldom to see opening up anyone's
> network across different admin domains. Lot's of things can break. The only
> deployments I have seen for option B & C were across multiple domains under
> the *same* administration.
>
> However if you are concerned about B & C I would rather ask your vendor to
> provide perfix limit on a per RD basis for VPNv4/v6 or EVPN sessions - no
> best path run needed. Very simple implementation extension and you are
> protected without any bgp protocol extensions.
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>