[c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Tue Jul 9 10:10:43 EDT 2013

On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 10:43:20 AM Adam Vitkovsky wrote:

> Are the access rings in a separate area/level or
> running a separate igp, or how do you scale your
> backbone IGP please?

We kept them in the IS-IS level (i.e., L2-only), as Inter-
Area MPLS-TE is not supported without resorting to deploying 
expanded loose hops for RSVP-TE sessions (p2p and p2mp).

The upside, simplicity and not running around 
troubleshooting potential adjacency problems caused having 
some routers being in the area a la L1 IS-IS.

The downside, NLRI changes in the IGP happening in one end 
of the network would be "heard" by a router in another part 
of the network that is not generally interested in them.

The weakest link was the smaller CPU's on the ME3600X, but 
those are not that bad to be honest. 

We opted to do that until the industry catches up with 
scaling methods that aren't as complex as BGP Label Unicast.

-------------- 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/20130709/1015b1e5/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list