[c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS

[Aaron]

Thanks Caillin/Saku/Adam, this differentiation of VPLS LDP Sig compared to
BGP Sig as it relates to loop prevention during redundant pe/ce at edge is
of interest to me...(I actually had a l2 forwarding loop scare me to death
and had to shut down backside c-to-c during maintenance window a few months
ago)....i walked away from that with a big question in my head as to how
does customer spanning tree feed into the loop prevention of split horizon
groups within a vpls as how pw forwarding treatment occurs...and I thought
to myself , it probably doesn't... which has had me wondering about this for
a few months....

BUT, now y'all mention that bgp signaled vpls as it relates to redundant
pe/ce avoids this.... correct?  I have adam's link, thanks adam, but does
anyone have more links related to understanding all that? 

Adam's implementation link....

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.3/lxvpn/co
nfiguration/guide/lesc43pbb.html#wp1183684

Aaron



-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Caillin Bathern
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:54 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net; adam.vitkovsky at swan.sk
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS

Adam,

My comment related to BGP VPLS with BGP signalling.  When you have two VPLS
PE interfaces with matching VE ID and VE block offset (in the same
VPLS) then you fall to the standard BGP tie-breakers for route selection
such as local-preference.  Hence you can have a single switched CE site
connect to two PEs and not have a loop between the core and access as you do
with LDP signalled VPLS.

Caillin

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku
Ytti
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 6:30 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS

On (2013-04-23 09:35 +0200), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:

> Anyways my question was regarding the "old school" VPLS as we all do 
> it right now and LDP vs BGP signaling in particular.
> I'd like to find out which one do you folks prefer and why. 

BGP, for all customer stuff, BGP. LDP only for IGP labels, and hopefully not
even that in 3 years time.

For VPLS if you're already doing discovery via BGP, running tLDP is just
additional complexity you don't need. LDP clearly scales poorly, BGP is
O(1) session to cater n remote PE, LDP is O(n)

If you're not doing discovery via BGP, configuration is awkward and complex
compared to L3 MPLS VPN.

--
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
--
Message  protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content
filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/