Bgp-Eigrp-Bgp redistribution question

Hi Experts,
Just wish to ask if there is an option to retain the as-path information in eigrp when i redistribute from bgp to eigrp then to bgp?
I recall coming across something similar to this before but I can't seem to remember it.
Thanks in advance.

Hello friend.
No, you can't retain the AS-PATH when redistributing prefixes from BGP to EIGRP.
What you CAN do though, is to add the AS-PATH you want when redistributing it BACK to BGP.
You can do something like this:
1 - Add a TAG when redistributing the BGP prefixes into EIGRP
route-map SET_TAG permit 10
 set tag 100
router eigrp 1
redistribute bgp 100 metric 1 1 1 1 1 route-map SET_TAG
2 - transform the TAG into an AS_PATH, when redistributing it BACK to BGP.
route-map set-as-path-from-tag
set as-path tag
router bgp 100
redistribute eigrp 1 route-map set-as-path-from-tag
Got it ?
I hope this helps you !
cheers

Similar Messages

  • Question about OSPF to BGP redistribution

    I have some static routes on a router where OSPF and BGP are also running. I have redistributed the static routes into OSPF (showing in OSPF database). I also want to have the static routes into the BGP routing table. Understand this can be done by using a prefix list permiting all the static routes, however I was thinking a simpler way just redistributing whatever is in the OSPF routing tabel into BGP (permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32).
    My question is if OSPF really redistributes those routes. Those routes are shown as "static" in "sh ip route" even though they are also in OSPF database. I have heard that OSPF only redistributes the routes showing as "OSPF routes", not what's in its database.
    Thanks for any help.
    Gary

    Hi Gary,
    The thing to understand here is that the use of redistribution does not change anything in the routing table of the router on which you are configuring it.
    As you have observed, static routes do not become OSPF routes when you redistribute them into OSPF. This can be generalised to the following: when you redistribute protoclol1 into protocol2, the router will scan the routing table for routes installed by protocol1 and will then do one of the following, depending on the protocol it is being redistributed into:
    - if it is a Link state protocol like OSPF, it will originate LSAs appropriate to the route being redistributed. These LSAs will be subsequently flooded to other routers which will install them as routes in their routing table. The only change on the redistributing router is the installation of additional LSAs; the routing table does not change
    - if it is a distance vector protocol like IGRP, the router will take the protocol1 routes and advertise them via IGRP update packets every time an update packet is sent. Once again, there is no change on the routing table of the redistributing router.
    Note the other important point: when redistributing is carried out, the only routes that are redistributed are those that are in the routing table and installed there by the source protocol, which could be quite different to the contents of link-state databases.
    Hope that helps.
    Pls remember to rate posts.
    Paresh.

  • BGP redistribution to EIGRP

    Hi all,
    I'm trying to redistribute BGP to EIGRP and vice versa. I am succussfully redistributing EIGRP to BGP, but can't get EIGRP routes into BGP.
    Here's my config. Any guidance or assistance would be very much appreciated. 
    router eigrp 100 network 10.18.72.0 0.0.0.255 redistribute static route-map DEFAULT_ROUTE redistribute bgp 65535 passive-interface default no passive-interface FastEthernet0/0!router bgp 65535 bgp router-id 172.18.2.1 bgp log-neighbor-changes redistribute eigrp 100 route-map EIGRP_REDISTRIBUTE neighbor 172.18.2.2 remote-as 65535 neighbor 172.18.2.2 password ciscobgp no auto-summaryip access-list extended EIGRP_ROUTES_TO_BGP permit ip any any!!ip prefix-list DEFAULT seq 5 permit 0.0.0.0/0!route-map EIGRP_REDISTRIBUTE permit 20 match ip address EIGRP_ROUTES_TO_BGP!route-map DEFAULT_ROUTE permit 10 match ip address prefix-list DEFAULT
    Thanks in advance.
    Neil

    Add "bgp redistribute-internal" to your bgp process. By default, iBGP doesn't redistribute into an IGP. The reason for this is simply the amount of routes that a bgp router can receive could overload an igp very easily, so you would definitely want to filter routes out when doing this.
    After you add this, clear your bgp neighbors and you should start seeing routes.
    HTH,
    John
    *** Please rate all useful posts ***

  • Bgp neighborship question

    Hi.
    one question.
    why  bgp neighborship doesn"t establish when no dynamic routing protocol is enabled?
    there four router.
    A--------B-------C-------D
    they all can ping. 
    No dynamic routing
    static routing only enabled.
    Configured bgp as 100 with A and D but bgp neighborshi didn"t establish.
    am i missing something??

    From A side :
    R1#ping 1.1.34.4
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 1.1.34.4, timeout is 2 seconds:
    Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 80/127/164 ms
    R1#show ip route
         1.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
    C       1.1.12.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
    S*   0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 1.1.12.2
    R1#ping 1.1.34.4
    R1#sh ip bgp summary
    BGP router identifier 1.1.12.1, local AS number 10
    BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1
    Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  State/PfxRcd
    1.1.34.4        4    10       0       0        0    0    0 never    Active
    =======================================================
    From D side :
    R4#sh ip bgp summary
    BGP router identifier 1.1.34.4, local AS number 10
    BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1
    Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  State/PfxRcd
    1.1.12.1        4    10       0       0        0    0    0 never    Active
    R4#
    there's no special log. i tested in my GNS3 and i can open 179 both side by using telnet
    weird thing is that when i enabled ospf for all of this topology, BGP neighborship was established.  that's why i asked this question. 
    router ospf 1
    net 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 a 0

  • EIGRP auto summary question

                       Hi all,
    I have question about EIGRP auto summary.
    Lets say R1 is connected to R2 and R2 is connected to R3.
    R2 and R3 have auto summ on by default.
    R1 has no auto summary configured.
    If R1 advertise about its Lan network 10.10.10.0/24
    Router EIGRP 100
    network 10.0.0.0
    no auto summary
    When router 10.10.10.0 reaches R3 will it be shown as or 10.0.0.0/8 classfull address  in R3s routing table?
    Thanks
    MAhesh

    Hello, it's been a few monts since you posted your question, but i fund it while preparing to ROUTE exam and i feel need to respond.
    Well I must say Mohamed i wrong. In your case R2 will NOT advertise summary route to R3.
    The official certification guide says:
    When a router has multiple working interfaces, and those interfaces use IP addresses in different classful networks, the router advertises a summary route for each classful network on interfaces attached to a different classful network.
    So learned routes are not subject of auto-summarization. They can still be summarized manually ofcourse.
    Firs of all - create a lab. Ok. I did it for you:
    10.10.10.0 - R1 - 192.168.12.x - R2 - 193.168.23.x - R3
    R1 does not summarize, R2 does.
    Lets see at R3:
    R3#sh ip route
    D    192.168.12.0/24 [90/307200] via 193.168.23.2, 00:42:30, FastEthernet0/0
         10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
    D       10.10.10.0 [90/332800] via 193.168.23.2, 00:42:30, FastEthernet0/0
    C    193.168.23.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
    See? No summary route. Let's do an experiment - let's add loopback interface on R2 with IP of 10.1.1.1 and check R3 again:
    R3#sh ip route
    D    192.168.12.0/24 [90/307200] via 193.168.23.2, 00:50:45, FastEthernet0/0
         10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
    D       10.10.10.0/24 [90/332800] via 193.168.23.2, 00:50:45, FastEthernet0/0
    D       10.0.0.0/8 [90/409600] via 193.168.23.2, 00:00:35, FastEthernet0/0
    C    193.168.23.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
    Now we have a 10/8 network as R2 summarised 10.1.1.0/24 to a classfull boudary, but we can still see /24 network as well. Thats the freaky way the auto-summariazation works.
    You have to remember: auto-summary feature indeed works when a router advertises prefixes between major networks, but ONLY directly connected ones. It does not affect learned networks.

  • Multihoming Primary/Backup PE MPLS VPN

    Hi there,
    I kind of stuck of implementing and configuring Primary/Backup scenario for MPLS VPN enviroment.
    Currently, only singe CE router connected to 2 PE router, Primary PE and Backup PE in the same POP.
    PE-CE IGP is running OSPF. On CE router prespective, how do I achieve primary/backup scenario and on other remote PE, how does MPLS VPN cloud noticed that there is Primary and Backup PE towords this CE router?
    Any configuration or sample out there? Appreciate for the help.
    regards,
    maher

    Hello Maher,
    I would try to set the interface metric to a higher value for the backup PE. With OSPF->BGP redistribution you should then get a higher MED in BGP making the path less preferable. Example:
    interface Serial0/0
    description to primary PE
    ip ospf cost 100
    interface Serial0/1
    description to backup PE
    ip ospf cost 1000
    Alternatively you could modify the MED while redistributiing into BGP:
    router bgp 65000
    address-family ipv4 vrf VRFname
    redistribute ospf 123 vrf VRFname match internal external route-map OSPF2BGP
    route-map OSPF2BGP permit 10
    set metric 10000
    Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • DMVPN Spoke with 2 internet link

    Hi All,
    I am stuck in a situation where we have 2 hubs one in HQ and one in DR site. Both hubs are configured to have different dmvpn cloud. We have some branches with two internet links one adsl and another 3G.
    I want to setup dmvpn in such a way so that if adsl goes down then dmvpn tuneel should come up via 3G.
    What I know is i would require different tunnels on spoke for achieving this. Currently on each spoke I have two tunnels one terminates on HQ and another terminates on DR and both are live. I am managing routes via eigrp.
    My question is that do I need to create another dmvpn cloud for this to work as I can not use same subnet IP on new tunnels which will be having 3G as source ? or shall I create new subnet for tunnels which will work over 3G ??
    if i create new tunnel for 3G network then what will be the configuration on HQ & DR as we have only on internet link on DR & HO.
    can anybody help me on this ?
    just need idea how to achive it. my full dmvpn is working over internet no private mpls....

    Hi Jain,
    You can let HQ and DR in same DMVPN Cloud. In HQ, do Static NHRP MAP to DR and vise versa.
    Spoke routers, create two static NHRP Map and NHS.
    Tunnel0
    description Spoke
    ip nhrp map multicast HQ-WAN-IP
    ip nhrp map HQ-Tunnel-IP HQ-WAN-IP
    ip nhrp map multicast DR-WAN-IP
    ip nhrp map DR-Tunnel-IP DR-WAN-IP
    ip nhrp network-id 123
    ip nhrp holdtime 60
    ip nhrp nhs HQ-Tunnel-IP
    ip nhrp nhs DR-Tunnel-IP
    This will allow you use one DMVPN cloud for two Hub.
    Secondly, for spoke failover to 3G, you would need to create another DMVPN Tunnel at HUB and SPOKE router
    At HUB, use different Tunnel IP, but tunnel source will be same. In order this to work, i will suggest you to use DMVPN over IPSec. Use Diffrent tunnel key and ip nhrp network-id for both tunnel interface. Use "shared" command when apply ipsec policy in Tunnel interface.
    Sample config at Hub( I only show the difference in Tunnel config)
    tunne0
    description ***Primary Tunnel***
    ip address x.x.x.x
    ip nhrp network-id 1
    tunnel key 1
    tunnel protection ipsec profile TN-DMVPN shared
    tunne1
    description ***Primary Tunnel***
    ip address y.y.y.y
    ip nhrp network-id 2
    tunnel key 2
    tunnel protection ipsec profile TN-DMVPN shared
    At Spoke, you configure same as primary tunnel, but make sure to change network-id and tunnel key. Here, you may no need to use "shared" command when apply ipsec policy
    Hope this helps.
    Regards,
    Nagis

  • BGP advertise-map questions

    I have a few questions pertaining to Conditional advertisements in BGP using advertise-map(s).
    From the Cisco site the examples I have seen stipulate that the routes you redistribute into BGP are through the means of "network" statements.
    The first question is, are you able to redistribute the route(s) you wish to control being advertised to neighboring BGP peers via an advertise-map through the "redistribute" command or must you use "network" statements?
    The second question is, are you able to put a condition on more than one route that you may or may not want to advertise based on the condition you have set. In otherwords as an example I want to allow around 30 routes to be advertised towards a BGP peer if a certain route exists in the BGP routing table. For this I will obviously need to use an advertise-map with the exist-map statement. Is it possible to have this condition set on the 30 routes?

    Advertise-map are only related to what is sent out of the router. They really don't care how the route got into the router. You can use either network statements or the redistribution command to get them into the bgp routing table.
    I don't know what the limit is on how many addreses you can put in the route-map used for conditional advertisement but it is much more than 30. It would just be in worse case a access list that had 30 entries.
    The conditional advertisement is not really any different than a normal route-map filter. You just build a access list or prefix list that matches any address you want to allow. You do it the same way as if you were building a normal route-map that allow certain routes all the time. The only thing really special is when it is applied not how you create it.

  • Redistribution in MP-BGP

    Hello,
    I have a question regarding the redistribution process in MPLS network on the SAME PE router.
    I have PE-CE RIPv2, and in the MPLS is MP-BGPv4. Between MPLS Core and LAN Core is OSPF.
    I redistribute RIP to BGP on PE, so I have CE routes in the BGP of my PE router.
    If I also redistribute BGP to OSPF on that very same router, will those BGP routes that are redistributed previously from RIP - be again redistributed in the OSPF from BGP?
    Thanks,
    h.

    Hello,
    Topology is: CE(1760) - PE(7609) - LAN(6509).
    On CE there's RIPv2 with PE in vrf User. On PE there's a redistribution of RIPv2 to BGP.
    PE(7609) and LAN (6509) are talking with OSPF in vrf User, so same vrf as PE-CE communication.
    If I put redistribute bgp on PE(7609) in OSPF process for vrf User, will those RIPv2 learned routes from CE that are now in BGP be redistributed into OSPF in vrf User and sent to LAN(6509)?
    I know that I can redistribute RIP straight to OSPF in vrf User on PE(7609), but I'm wondering will this also do the job.
    thanks,
    h.

  • Can BGP be used like EIGRP / OSPF?

    Can BGP be used like EIGRP / OSPF? Can some one explain?

    Disclaimer
    The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    As Peter described, normally you wouldn't use BGP in place of an IGP like EIGRP or OSPF.
    However, if you're a masochist, you could.
    For example, if all your routers were connected by p2p links, you could configure each router in its own AS and run them as eBGP peers.
    What Peter was alluding to, normally interior BGP peers run as iBGP peers, but then each requires a connection to every other peer (full mesh).  (There's also BGP route reflectors or BGP confederations, which limit the need for interior iBGP peering to all other iBGP routers, but neither deals with how the iBGP routers "know" how to route to their required peers.)  Normally an IGP protocol is used to provide reachability, but you could do the same with static routes.  Of course, whether you have an IGP or use static routes that maps out the whole interior topology they both beg the question of why also then have iBGP too (if being used just for the interior topology).
    There's a limit to the number of AS numbers, especially if using just the private range, so you could combine the two approaches, such as having small clusters of iBGP peers (maybe 2 or 3) which eBGP peer to other clusters.
    If you did go to all the trouble, you would then find that BGP will likley converge  slower than most IGPs and unless you do some manual policy configuration, BGP won't path select much better than RIP.
    What BGP does well is handle massive route tables (like the Internet) and allow very sophiscated (manual) routing policies.  However, both are usually not as desirable for an IGP.

  • VPLS - Which protocol, BGP, OSPF, EIGRP

    Hi Community,
    I am trying to figure out which protocol to use on a flat layer 2 VPLS.
    We have a flat layer 2 to connect 10 offices and some other point to point links to connect to other offices. We currently use EIGRP but going forward we want to control the routnig and the path the traffic takes. I was planning on using BGP to peer between the offices using a hub and spoke topology, instead of a full mesh. I know OSFP is better for a layer 2 VPLS as it alows the full lan to be used effectively.
    Can anyone suggest why we shouldn't use BGP on a VPLS from a provider?
    Regards
    D.

    Hi Dinesh
    In my personal opinion using BGP in a LAN environment will not provide any benefit as it will add to the BGP Session overhead per LAN Node owing to the Full Mesh requirement which is definitely not scalable.OSPF as an IGP is good choice to be run on the LAN in broadcast Mode which will help keep optmial design using DR/BDR.As far as the Routing Control is concerned BGP should be used for external traffic outside OSPF domain and mutually controlled redistribution between the external Routing Protocol and OSPF should be used.
    But if we intend to use Hub and Spoke Topology using P2MP Broadcast Ethernet ie VPLS I think this will not be possible to achieve in OSPF Broadcast Mode neither in BGP using IBGP in Hub and Spoke Fashion among the sites because of BGP Split-Horizon Rule nor using dedicated EBGP Sessions between Hub and Spokes because of 3rd Party Next-Hop feature . So in this scenario of using VPLS for any to any communication in L2 Mode between the sites and then considering Hub and Spoke topology will not be possible to achieve either in OSPF or using BGP and also it defies the basic VPLS connectivity taken to connect the diffent sites in P2MP mode.
    This is my personal take on this scenario and hope this helps you something in your design considerations.
    Regards
    Varma

  • Question about network statement in OSPF and BGP

    The network statements in OSPF and BGP can be used to advertise networks. But I'm not clear under what circumstances would make more sense to use network statements to advertise a network than by using other methods to have the network learned by other routers.
    Here is an example: assume I'm running BGP on router A. I want to advertise network 10.1.1.0/24 to other BGP peers. I have a OSPF route for this network. I can do 2 things: one is to use "network 10.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0", the other is to do "redistribute OSPF ... route-map OSPF-INTO-BGP", and create a prefix list to permit 10.1.1.0/24.
    Both would work to have this network learned by other BGP peers. But which is better for what purpose?
    Thanks a lot
    Gary

    Hi Gary,
    There is one little difference between the use of the two approaches - the route injected into BGP by using a network statement will carry an Origin attribute of IGP, whereas the route injected using redistribution will have an Origin attribute of Incomplete. Now, that is not a huge issue since you can always change that whatever value you desire both with the use of the network statement and redistribution. The important thing, however, is that in the BGP best path selection process, the Origin attribute comparison is fairly high up and will prefer a route with the attribute of IGP.
    Apart from that, there is absolutely no difference between using the network statement and using redistribution with a route-map that matches exactly on the same route that you would have specified with the network statement.
    I guess one advantage of using the redistribute approach is that it does not clutter up the BGP config. If you wish to add more routes, you simply add them to the prefix list so that you don't really touch the BGP config portion at all..
    Hope that helps - pls do remember to rate posts that help.
    Paresh

  • EIGRP vs BGP route path selection scenario

    I am looking for a routing solution to the following scenario.  It is a fairly simple design. 
    I have two WAN connections between sites A and B.  One is a 20 Meg Metro Ethernet Circuit running EIGRP.  The other is a 10 Meg MPLS running BGP.  What do I need to do in my configuration to make sure that the 20 Meg connection is the chosen path based off the fact that it has better speed and bandwidth?  It appears to me that the MPLS is the preferred path even though it is slower.
    See attached Diagram:
    Site A Config
    interface GigabitEthernet1/0/12
     description PADC COX P2P 20 Meg
     no switchport
     bandwidth 20480
     ip address 172.20.1.1 255.255.255.252
    interface GigabitEthernet2/0/2
     description LEVEL 3 MPLS
     no switchport
     bandwidth 10240
     ip address 172.22.0.2 255.255.255.252
    router eigrp 1
     network 10.0.1.0 0.0.0.255
     network 172.20.1.0 0.0.0.3
     network 192.168.76.8 0.0.0.3
      redistribute bgp 65003 metric 100 1 255 1 1500 route-map MPLS_NETWORKS
     redistribute static route-map DEFAULT_ROUTE
    router bgp 65003
     bgp log-neighbor-changes
     redistribute static
     redistribute eigrp 1
     neighbor 172.22.0.1 remote-as 1
     default-information originate
    Site B Config
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
     description COX Communications 10 Meg to Venyu
     bandwidth 20480
     ip address 172.20.1.2 255.255.255.252
     duplex auto
     speed auto
     service-policy output VOIP
    interface GigabitEthernet0/2
     description Level 3 MPLS
     bandwidth 10240
     ip address 172.22.1.2 255.255.255.252
     duplex full
     speed 100
    router eigrp 1
     network 10.3.1.0 0.0.0.31
     network 10.52.1.0 0.0.0.255
     network 10.76.6.0 0.0.0.255
     network 172.20.1.0 0.0.0.3
     network 192.168.63.64 0.0.0.63
     network 192.168.76.249 0.0.0.0
     passive-interface default
     no passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/0
     no passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/1
    router bgp 65003
     bgp log-neighbor-changes
     network 10.3.1.0 mask 255.255.255.224
     network 10.52.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0
     network 10.76.6.0 mask 255.255.255.0
     network 192.168.76.249 mask 255.255.255.255
     neighbor 172.22.1.1 remote-as 1

    If each router is receiving advertisements for the same networks/subnet masks from both BGP and EIGRP it will always choose the BGP routes because they have a lower AD ie. 20 vs EIGRP 90.
    Doesn't matter what the bandwidth is.
    If you want to prefer the 20Mbps links then there are a number of options -
    1) if you can summarise each sites subnets then advertise the summary via BGP and the more specific via EIGRP.  More specific will be chosen even before AD is taken into account.
    2) change the AD of either BGP or EIGRP so EIGRP ends up with the lower AD
    3) run BGP on both links although you would still need to manipulate the attributes to make sure the link you want is used.
    Jon

  • Lower Admin Distance of BGP so EIGRP is higher

    Customers current WAN is using P2P T1s (ML-PPP) Telco sold them a MPLS T1 network as a Backup Network. P2P T1 network is using EIGRP and MPLS is using BGP. My problem is I want to change the admistrative of the Routes learned from BGP (mpls provider) from a weight of 20 to value greater tham 90. This way the primary path is the ML-PPP NxT1 EIGRP links and the back up is MPLS. If MPLS was using Static routes, I would use IP SLA with a Track object on my static routes to the MPLS network.
    I have tried the Distance BGP command 200 200 200 and it does not appear to work. But since the documentation says " configure a rating of the trustworthiness of a routing information source" on the Distance BGP command, that is not what I want. Can this be done? or should I go the Static Route way on my MPLS backup WAN network?
    Thanks
    Charlie

    HI Charlie,
    To increase BGP AD you can use distance commmand to either increase the AD of all BG routes of specific routes from specific source.
    here an example.
    Router bgp AS#
    distance AD IP Souce Wildcard
    In this example i have 2 routers connected via serial interfaces R4 and R5 and both running OSPF and BGP R4 advertise 4.4.4.4/32 via both OSPF and BGP, BGP route selected and installed in the FIB table but once the BGP AD changed OSPF route become the best.
    router bgp 200
    distance 120 10.10.45.4 0.0.0.0
    R5#show ip bg
    BGP table version is 4, local router ID is 100.10.10.5
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
    r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
    Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    r> 4.4.4.4/32 10.10.45.4 0 0 100 i
    R5#show ip route ospf | inc 4.4
    O 4.4.4.4 [110/2] via 192.168.45.4, 00:06:19, GigabitEthernet0/1
    Also i got the same result with the below command.
    router bgp 200
    distance bgp 200 200 200
    Note that hard clear is a must, so don't forget to use clear ip bg x.x.x.x
    Please rate helpful posts.
    Best Regards,
    Mounir Mohamed

  • BGP to OSPF redistribution with VRFs

    I am having a problem with redistribution of routes between BGP and OSPF when using VRFs mapping to VLANs between the PE and CE.
    In this lab I've put together I have R4 and R5 communicating with eachother via BGP with MPLS. If I redistribute the BGP into OSPF and delivering the connection to the CE without VLANs it works fine. If I want to essentially keep the same primary network going into the other side of the BGP but send the VRF over a VLAN to the next router the redistribution doesn't happen.
    In this example I have
    192.168.100.0/24 (R6) --ospf-- (R4) --BGP-- (R5) --ospf-- (R7) 192.168.200.0/24
    Between R4 and R5 is the core network running ospf (R1 - R3).
    Can anyone point me in the right direction why this isn't working? I am obviously missing something here.
    Thanks,
    Mike

    Hi Mike,
    You need to add capability vrf-lite under ospf process of R6 and R7 because they are configured with VRF-lite. This command will disable the check usually done on the PE to avoid routing loops.
    HTH
    Laurent.

Maybe you are looking for