[c-nsp] redistribute routes leaked from another VRF?

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:12:05 pm Phil Mayers wrote:

> It's also worth knowing that there's an evolved set of
> this called mvpn-ng (not on Cisco IOS yet unfortunately)
> which dispenses with various of the PIM-in-PIM layering.
> Since 6500/SXI doesn't support it, I've never bothered
> to do more than read the RFC, but the terminology is a
> lot more evolved and addresses some of the concerns like
> inter-AS and such.

I can speak to the NG-MVPN infrastructure. It works very 
well, provides great isolation (VRF's) and is quite easy to 
deploy.

But as Phil says, sadly, it's not (yet) implemented in IOS. 
Only JUNOS, AFAIK.

We've been very happy running it. Not having to enable PIM 
in the core is a definite plus.

Watch out for yet another battle here between Cisco and 
Juniper. Cisco are pushing mLDP strongly, while Juniper are 
heavy on NG-MVPN (which is currently p2mp RSVP-TE-based). As 
is now the case with the ASR9000 and other Cisco platforms 
now supporting BGP signaling for VPLS, I expect we shall see 
Juniper supporting mLDP and Cisco implementing NG-MVPN in 
the future, as the battle between the MX and ASR9000 heats 
up.

That said, IOS XR currently supports p2mp RSVP-TE (but 
without the MVPN part), which means one can potentially have 
a Cisco core (based on the CRS or ASR9000, today) and a 
Juniper edge for NG-MVPN-based Multicast.

Cheers,

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/20110105/ff660809/attachment.pgp>