[c-nsp] I-BGP/IGP question

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Tue Sep 16 02:55:38 EDT 2014

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 08:48:17 AM Spyros Kakaroukas 

> Exactly what Mark said. The only design you'd have an
> issue with that is if you had routers that do not run
> BGP. Even then, you could solve that with MPLS ( not
> necessarily TE, a good old bgp-free core design with LDP
> would be just fine ) , but that's really not a use case
> anymore as pretty much everything can run BGP.

We still run a BGP-free core in our network (for IPv4), even 
though the boxes can certainly handle BGP just fine (CRS 
with the current generation RP's).

IPv6 is still carried in the core for now, obviously.

> Lately, there have been a few designs that offer extreme
> scalability, based on rfc3107 ( bgp-lu ) , but I've yet
> to hear of anyone actually implementing them . You can
> find cisco's flavor here (
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/multiprotocol-
> label-switching-mpls/mpls/116127-configure-technology-00.
> html ) or a relevant draft here (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpl
> s-07 )

RFC 3107 is certainly a consideration when scaling end-to-
end MPLS backbones, e.g., networks with Metro-E boxes 
running IP/MPLS on things such as the ME3600X.

In these cases, BGP-LS could also be interesting.

Time will tell.

-------------- 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/20140916/0e6630a0/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list