[c-nsp] m-vpn

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, June 08, 2012 05:11:00 PM Christian wrote:

> Juniper implements the most complicated way in my
> opinion. NG means running BGP for auto-discovery, BGP
> for c-state advertisements *and* pruning, and then
> RSVP-TE for LSP setup.
> 
> What to do now? Both RFCs are from Juniper and Cisco, but
> both implement totally different concepts, one bloated,
> the other a bit proprietary (or not?).
> 
> Is it now Cisco's fault that we don't have
> interoperability, because they didn't want to implement
> the tainted BGP-way? There are so many options and
> possibilities in the RFC to implement mVPN so that
> interoperability is in either case very unlikely to
> happen for the next years.
> 
> How difficult can Multicast be? Should we wait another 10
> years for good solution?

Cisco may huff and puff, but they will add support for BGP-
MVPN's much like they did with BGP-based VPLS signaling on 
the ASR9000.

Yes, adding PIM into BGP is awkward, but not having to run 
PIM in the core is a huge advantage (well, it was for us 
anyway - when the core was mostly old Juniper routers that 
needed Tunnel PIC's to run PIM, and even after the core was 
migrated to either Juniper MX or Cisco CRS routers, which 
don't need Tunnel PIC's to run PIM, it was still simpler not 
having to worry about PIM in the core).

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20120701/8051cfe9/attachment.sig>