I have 2 questions about the following setup
- Integrate Fusion Devices with the Legacy Network by Static Routing (Default + few specifics redistributed to IS-IS)
- Legacy Core switches just have a single route back to the fusion covering all SD-Access address space
- Fusion Devices running IS-IS in a single domain with Control Plane / Border (CP|B) and Edges
- Fusion Devices running VRF Lite BGP with CP|B to exchange all per VRF routes
- Fusion Devices also running VRF Lite BGP with each other
Now this is the setup that works well and I am controlling injecting of the routes to Underlay from the Fusion devices. It also allows Full reachability of the underlay without Mutual Redistribution of IS-IS to BGP on the border nodes as it is explained in every example I have seen so far.
question 1
Is there anything in this setup that could cause a problem or have no TAC support i.e. specifically running IS-IS as well as BGP between the fusion and borders but also having no mutual redistribution on the border which makes it simple to me. Both domains overlap and it is basically because I started with IS-IS only everywhere to get basic connectivity and didn't remove it later on the link between Fusion and Borders.
question 2
All examples I see use VRF lite between BGP speakers which creates a lot of peerings. Is it ok to use mBGP on all those peerings:
- Fusion to Fusion (iBGP) - I have tested mBGP with MPLS encap and it works fine
- Fusion to Border (eBGP) - I am hesitant to change the default configuration pushed by DNAC so still VRF Lite here
- Border to Border (iBGP) - I have tested mBGP with MPLS encap and it works fine
thanks
Wojtek
