[c-nsp] MPLS - collapsed P PE

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday 02 December 2009 03:25:50 am harbor235 wrote:

> Is anyone out there utilizing a collapsed P/PE in thier
>  MPLS networks?

We have a number of these, particularly in smaller PoP's.

We have designated specific key locations in the business 
district or country as major core PoP's. These have P 
routers as well as some others to support customers and 
production services.

In smaller PoP's, we deploy collapsed P/PE boxes that haul 
back to our P routers.

It's a design that works well, doesn't break the bank, and 
can easily be upgraded if a P function needs to be separated 
from the PE function, in the future.

>  Do you regret deploying the architecture

Nope!

>  and what are the problem areas if any?

None, it just works. Again, the architecture is such that 
the functions can be separated at any time, if needed.

> I assume it's a dollar issue...

Yes. No use having a CRS-1 next to an ASR1002 in a small PoP 
just to serve customers there, when you can get an ASR1006 
and use it for both functions, if you don't need to push 
more than 20Gbps of aggregated capacity :-).

> and as long as you have
>  minimal PE to CE aggregation
> this is the way to go.

Like Pshem, all our P/PE-based PoP's aggregate customers on 
regular Ethernet switches purely forwarding on Layer 2 
Ethernet alone. 802.1Q trunks + LACP give you uplink 
capacity and redundancy.

You can take this one step further and include aggregation 
in your P/PE setup, but this means a slightly bigger box, 
which may or may not make sense, e.g., Juniper's new MX80 
vs. Cisco's 7604 vs. Brocade's NetIron CES/CER 2000, 
depending on the depth of your pockets and how important the 
PoP is.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20091202/0b3641d4/attachment.bin>