[c-nsp] pros and cons for IPTV multicast in rosen-mvpn vs GRT

[Adam Vitkovsky]

> easier to reduce loss-of-connectivity after link/node failures using IGP
Fast Convergence compared to BGP-based convergence. 
Yes the convergence time would be slower I suppose as a mere addition of
another protocols to the picture. 
Though if you consider the whole LoC timeframe the IGP or BGP convergence is
one of the smallest portions -compared to the PIM convergence time. 

> Why do you consider putting it into a VRF?
Well the main concern my boss has is the exposure of core/global routing
table to set-top-boxes -as a potential attack vector


adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboehmer at cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Adam Vitkovsky; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] pros and cons for IPTV multicast in rosen-mvpn vs GRT

 
>Are there any cons for running IPTV in draft-rosen-mvpn as opposed to 
>global routing table

current implementation makes it generally easier to reduce
loss-of-connectivity after link/node failures using IGP Fast Convergence
compared to BGP-based convergence when the mcast sources/TV headends are
visible in BGP. You can also use p2mp-TE-FRR when mcast is in the global
routing table (not sure if things have changed there). MoFRR is also
targeted for PIM deployments in the global table, and some live-live
approaches might not work as well if the sources aren't visible from the
core/P nodes.

Why do you consider putting it into a VRF?

I acknowledge that reasoning is highly dependent on specific network
topology and requirements..

	oli