7200emu.hacki.at

[ccie14745]

Here's the version 2 of my MPLS lab. I've expanded the original to include a pair of P-core routers that also act as route-reflectors for the PE routers. Much of the addressing has changed from the first version, so refer to the included PDF file for those details.

UPDATE: I have corrected the diagram, .NET topology, and configs for the P and PE routers so that all the interfaces and addresses finally match.

Hope this helps someone out there...
--
Justin White
CCIE #14745

[cisco007]

Hi Justin,
Thanks for this lab. I am just looking through config, i see that on the PE routers you have ldp advertisement enabled on all interfaces. Does this mean that you are sending the mpls label to CE routers.

Thanks

[ccie14745]

No, since those interfaces do not have "mpls ip" enabled. However, this command is a default after configuring LDP in place of TDP:

mpls ldp advertise-labels

It's useful to note that this command can be used to give you control over which VRFs are used to advertise labels, which destinations are advertised, and to which neighbors should the labels be advertised. Very useful indeed, but not included in this topology. However, I suspect this is exactly to the sort of thing to appear on the CCIE Service Provider exam.

[conspathas]

I've never played with an MPLS lab before and I needed a break from all the R/S study I been doing. Thanks for posting up this nifty lab.

I do have 1 question though - am I going bonkers or does the Physical Topology diagram not match the configs provided? You mentioned that much of the addressing has changed.

ie:
In the diagram F0/0 on PE1 connects to P1 with an IP of 192.168.0.10/30
The provided router config has F0/0 unused and S1/0 connects to P1 with an IP of 10.1.1.2/30

I've been up for a while now - so I'm pretty buggered - and could be losing the plot...

[ccie14745]

no, the diagram prolly does need work. i was up late workin on it, so that's not a surprise. i'll fix it tomorrow and repost it.

[cisco007]

Hi Justin,
I have a quick question regrading MBGP and my MPLS lab.
In my configuration i have the following setup:
PE1------P-----P------PE2

In this case do i need to configure P routers as route reflectors?
I need to run MBPG between PE1 and PE2.

Thanks

[ccie14745]

No. You should be able to peer the PEs directly. Route reflectors are useful when you want to limit the number of IBGP peering sessions. The principal is that all PEs, in the same AS, should have a full mesh of IBGP peers. That full mesh would become very hard to maintain once you add a large number of PE routers. That's where route reflectors come in to limit the number of sessions required.

Neither your scenario nor mine require route reflectors. I just thought it was a cool feature to add to the scenario.

[conspathas]

[ccie14745]

I've updated the diagram to reflect the right interfaces. Nothing in the configs or .NET topology has changed from the previous version.

I gladly welcome others to point out any other lazy screwups on my part.

[conspathas]

Thanks Justin - that's great.

I'll have another play with it when I'm tired of doing R&S labs...