[c-nsp] m-vpn

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 09:23:22 AM adam vitkovsky wrote:

> I didn't came across any limitations/scalability issues
> running PIM to distribute customer m-cast state did any
> of you please?

PIM in the global table may not be an issue, but mVPN-based 
PIM is a different story.

> I'm a fan of the idea to let BGP carry
> everything,...

Well, I'm not (which is why I still prefer LDP-based EoMPLS 
over BGP-based EoMPLS), but it makes sense for Multicast.

I always said, with the way the IETF are going, we shall 
soon see BGP carrying DNS. That's the point I'll hand in my 
RJ-45 jacks and crimping tool :-).

> but I fail to see an added value here (maybe
> PIC-Edge for m-cast?) And yet I'd still have to run PIM
> at the edge

You only need PIM at the edge where you're picking up the 
Source. Receiver PE routers only require IGMP (although in 
operation, most folk would enable PIM anyway, as it 
automatically turns on IGMP).

BGP is needed because the core doesn't run PIM. Without PIM 
in the core, you need a method to distribute Multicast state 
from Source to Receiver.

> Also all this requires the upgrade of all the Intra/Inter
> AS RRs to support the new SAFI

One of the reasons we maintained Juniper route reflectors 
even though the Cisco's made sense.

With IOS XE planning to support NG-MVPN soon, expect the 
ASR1001 (a favorite for route reflection, in my books), 
support for the MCAST-NLRI SAFI won't be an issue.

> As far as the core signaling protocol is concerned
> MPLS-TE requires much more state in the core than MLDP
> and I believe the trend now is to go the IP FRR/LFA way
> instead of the complex MPLS-TE FRR leaving TE only for
> exceptional cases where we really need to engineer
> traffic paths and protect BW  or temporary solutions
> till core link upgrades

Juniper already support mLDP for BGP-MVPN's, but like I said 
before, it's the same old VPLS BGP vs. LDP war. Eventually, 
Cisco will cave, especially since Juniper support both.

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/20120701/43d8c801/attachment-0001.sig>