H3C Technologies H3C SR8800 - Manual (Page 243)

232
Figure 62 Network diagram for inter-AS option B
In terms of scalability, inter-AS option B is better than option A.
When adopting MP-EBGP method, note the following issues:
• ASBRs perform no VPN target filtering on VPN-IPv4 routes that they receive from each other.
Therefore, the ISPs in different ASs that exchange VPN-IPv4 routes need to agree on the route
exchange.
• VPN-IPv4 routes are exchanged only between VPN peers. A VPN user can exchange VPN-IPv4
routes neither with the public network nor with MP-EBGP peers with whom it has not reached
agreement on the route exchange.
Inter-AS option C
The inter-AS option A and B solutions can satisfy the needs for inter-AS VPNs. However, they require that
the ASBRs maintain and advertise VPN-IPv4 routes. When every AS needs to exchange a great amount
of VPN routes, the ASBRs may become bottlenecks hindering network extension.
One way to solve the above problem is to make PEs directly exchange VPN-IPv4 routes without the
participation of ASBRs:
• Two ASBRs advertise labeled IPv4 routes to PEs in their respective ASs through MP-IBGP.
• The ASBRs neither maintain VPN-IPv4 routes nor advertise VPN-IPv4 routes to each other.
• An ASBR maintains labeled IPv4 routes of the PEs in the AS and advertises them to the peers in the
other ASs. The ASBR of another AS also advertises labeled IPv4 routes. Thus, an LSP is established
between the ingress PE and egress PE.
• Between PEs of different ASs, Multi-hop EBGP connections are established to exchange VPN-IPv4
routes.
M
P-
IBG
P
MP-
IBGP