whether the local and the remote PE devices should have same VRF

[jsremi001]

Hi,

I am configuring MPLS L3 VPN. I wanted to know whether the local and the remote PE devices should have same VRF configured to share routes between them. I have given here my local PE BGP local config. (If possible pls share example configs)

Router(config)# router bgp 100

Router(config-router)# address-family ipv4 vrf cisco

Router(config-router-af)#

[Harold Ritter]

I don't know if you were referring to the VRF name as such, but the only thing that needs to match between the two PEs is the route-target (route-target exported on one side is imported on the other side and vice versa).

PE1:

vrf definition vrf1

rd 1:1

route-target import 1:1

route-target export 1:1

PE2:

PE1:

vrf definition vrf11

rd 1:11

route-target import 1:1

route-target export 1:1

As you can see in the example, the vrf name and route distinguisher do not match between the two PEs, but routes will be exchanged successfully because the RT import on one side matches the export on the other side.

Regards,

[jsremi001]

Thanks. I got it now.

I still have queries.

Is there any relationship between NLRI and RT and BGP signaling ? How the NLRI will be used to identify destination ? what Is it command that enables MB-BGP? 

[Harold Ritter]

The route distinguisher (RD) is added to the prefix to make it unique in the SP core, therefore there is a relationship between the RD and NLRI, but not the RT. The RT is added as and extended community to the BGP path advertisement.

As far as MP-BGP, you need to enable addres-family vpnv4 and/or vpnv6 to propagate the prefixes between the two PEs (would normally be through a route reflector in a SP network).

Regards,

[jsremi001]

Thanks, for the reply. 

I am still confused between route leaking and inter vrf routing.

Can you explain the similarities and differences with use cases? 

Regards,