Re: [c-nsp] L2VPN with IP address

[Kornelijus Survila <kornholijo () gmail com>]

The multihop BGP solution might be the best one with least overhead;

however you should be able to use a GRE tunnel if you still want to do this:

interface Tunnel1
ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.252
tunnel source FastEthernet0/0
tunnel destination small.router.ip

interface Tunnel1
ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.252
tunnel source FastEthernet0/0
tunnel destination big.router.ip

-k

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk <pshem.k () gmail com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a situation, where a customer wants a full BGP table
> (persuasion failed already), but is connected to small router (2821),
> with not enough memory to get anywhere near full table.  I have few
> other routers (ASR1K, 7600) that would normally be used for that, but
> are in far-away locations. Of course I can set up a local BGP session
> and then add a multihop one for the full feed, but that doesn't seem
> like an elegant solution any more. All the routers run MPLS, so if I
> could get a xconnect going between one of the bigger boxes and the
> small PE, without actually wasting port on the bigger router (by
> having some sort of logical interface) then I could run the BGP
> session directly. I had a look on Cisco website, but either it's not
> possible or that kind of bridging has a special name that I can't pin
> down. If you've heard of such feature - please let me know.
>
> kind regards
> Pshem
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp () puck nether net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/