[c-nsp] m-vpn

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, June 08, 2012 07:42:55 PM Phil Bedard wrote:

> Coming from a large provider with a BGP and LDP free
> core, and utilizing TE, we much prefer the BGP signaled
> method with P2MP RSVP-TE than native PIM or even using
> MLDP.  Providers have been asking Cisco for this stuff
> for a long time now.  IOS-XR has MVPN with static routed
> P2MP RSVP-TE in 4.2.1, I doubt NG-MVPN is far behind
> although they will be kicking and screaming the whole
> way.

Coming to IOS XR Q1'13, and on the roadmap for IOS XE.

Cisco really have no choice here. We've dropped several 
ASR9000's from the proposal list simply because of lack of 
this, which is what happened when customers were looking for 
VPLS back then.

> The Cisco methodology of using the mdt-safi is completely
> outdated at this point and if you are already using BGP
> to signal this why not use it to signal customer state
> instead of having a secondary complicated method to do
> so...

Agree.

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/e5827aaa/attachment.sig>