[c-nsp] m-vpn

[adam vitkovsky]

Last time I've looked at the m-cast configuration guide for ASR9000 4.2 it
had configuration examples for MLDP with BGP -wouldn't that be the BGP-MVPN
please?

adam
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:57 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] m-vpn

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.