[c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

Phil Bedard philxor at gmail.com
Mon Jul 8 06:33:36 EDT 2013

XR supports it in the latest revision, didn't know about the 3600
support. I guess this is the C-NSP list. We have thousands of non-Cisco
nodes deployed using RSVP-TE in the access layer but it requires
stitching at the service layer to scale. It has shown to be scalable at
least for us.

One thing starting to come back is the use of unnumbered interfaces and
Cisco has some auto-IP stuff via LLDP to help with ring deployments. L2
makes ring insertions somewhat easier.

Unified/Seamless MPLS has been around for years and would be ideal but
the end nodes have traditionally had poor BGP support. The agg nodes
will do BGP-LU to LDP translation but the LFIB capacity is fairly
small. Requires using something like LDP DOD to really work. The nodes
support using an aggregate or default prefix for the LDP IGP route.
From: Adam Vitkovsky
Sent: 7/8/2013 4:12
To: Phil Bedard; Andrew Miehs; mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE
>Or IP FRR If you aren't in a ring scenario which breaks it.
Not anymore, XR and XE and I believe the newest me-3600 code also does
support IP FRR with Remote-LFA which solves the LFA inequality problem in
ring topologies. And XR supports te-tunnel to be selected as backup
interface allowing you to take care of any corner cases that rLFA can't


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list