CFG H2+ no-prepend replace-as

[ccie2018]

I just heard some guys discussed about no-prepend replace-as in H2+ but I did not understand the question and why do Cisco ask about it? Please discuss and help me.

Thanks.

[ccierscisco]

CE router should not see AS 65001 information when info send by PE Router(R50/R51/R52)

[Robin]

let me share with you the full question:

Refer to the “Overall Scenario”, “Diagram 2: Initial Topology” and “Diagram 4: Pre- merge Topology”. Jacob’s decided to enable MPLS VPN in their network Configure Jameson’s network as per the following requirements: based on Topology.
• Redistribute between EIGRP and BGP, not allow to do any aggregate at R55 and R56.
• R1 have peer with R50, R51, R52 and R1 must be router-reflector.
• CE in Jocobs do not see AS 65001 in NLRI

[ccie2018]

Please share the solution for this one also.

[Robin]

Please share the solution for this one also.

That is my solution, you can test in your lab
**Hidden Content: Check the thread to see hidden data.**

[Nobita]

That is my solution, you can test in your lab
***Hidden content cannot be quoted.***

Thank for sharing your solution, I tested and it worked with me.

[cciestub]

Did anybody used SOO in H2/H2+ for loop protection?

[Geronimo]

Thank you for solution. going to test it

[orowp]

Thanks.
So this is the solution for following question: CE in Jocobs do not see AS 65001 in NLRI


What is the solution for following questions:

1. PE Routers in JACOBS location should not contain AS65006 in BGP NLRI
---> Here also do we have to remove AS65006 from 50,51 and 52 and use AS65001 AS number. (DO we need to use no "no-prepend replace-as" here also)


2. PE Routers in JACOBS location should not contain AS65001 in BGP NLRI (This is mentioned in H2)
--> As per solution mentioned, local-as command is used on R50,51,52 in bgp neighborship with R1:
neigh 10.255.1.1 remote-as 65001
neigh 10.255.1.1 local-as 65001

Is this correct or any additional thing is required ?