[c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Jul 8 11:14:55 EDT 2013

On Monday, July 08, 2013 12:33:36 PM Phil Bedard wrote:

> 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.

You're brave.

We, at the time, opted to wait for IP LFA since RSVP-TE in 
the Access (even just to the adjacent PE routers) just 
didn't look administratively feasible, let alone scale :-).

I'd be glad to hear more about your experiences.

> 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.

MPLS-in-the-Access has been around for a long time, but only 
if you were prepared to spend a lot on big boxes in order to 
have good support.

Some folk decided to put in the 7604's or MX240's, but those 
were all simply still too big.

Luckily, we waited long enough until the Brocade CER/CES, 
the Cisco ME3600X/3800X and the Juniper MX80 started to 

Each of these has great all-round support (including QoS in 
the ME3600X/3800X, which has always been a turn-off in Cisco 
switches), and we went for the ME3600X.

So, now at least, operators have a real shot at extending 
MPLS into the access for the price, without compromising 

-------------- 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/20130708/38bd97fe/attachment.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list