[j-nsp] Multicast senders/receivers on the same PE (different VRF) with NG MVPN

[Vladislav A. VASILEV]

Hi,

The only thing I wasn't sure about was, whether or not the traffic goes
through the fabric in cases where you have different VTs (I'm almost
certain this used to be a problem).

Thanks,
Vladi

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Krasimir Avramski <krasi at smartcom.bg>wrote:

> Hi,
> vt when used with "multicast" keyword(in configuration upon binding VT ifl
> to VRF) is only used for multicast traffic replication(loopback) to
> receivers living in different MVPN instances. The unicast traffic can still
> use vrf-table-label, the same vt ifl as multicast, a different vt ifl than
> multicast, or neither.
> Also the tunnel hardware is only needed when remote PE is receiving
> through P2MP LSP and has more than one MVPN instance that could have
> receivers for a given source (is importing the routes for a particular
> source).
> The VT's to PFE anchoring is defined with tunnel services
> definition(slot/pic or mic) - so if needed traffic goes through fabric to
> the anchor PFE for processing.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Krasi
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Vladislav A. VASILEV <
> vladislavavasilev at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Krasimir,
>>
>> I had only considered vt interfaces for doing filtering/additional look
>> ups for traffic egressing L3VPNs (prior to the vrf-table-lable being
>> available). I now have a working NG MVPN (extranet). However, what if I
>> wanted to have senders/receivers physically terminated on the same router,
>> but on different MPCs? Effectively, traffic wouldn't be processed by the
>> same Trio chip = different vt interface!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Krasimir Avramski <krasi at smartcom.bg>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> NG-MVPN extranets are supported since junos 9.5:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/topic-map/mcast-mbgp-extranets.html#jd0e120
>>>
>>> As I remember in some corner cases(only two extranet VRFs on the same
>>> router - if my memory serves me right) there is NO need for tunnel hw (VT-
>>> ifls)  -  only  "vrf-table-label" (lsi ifls) should do the trick.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Krasi
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Vladislav A. VASILEV <
>>> vladislavavasilev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I need to deliver multicast data to a receiver in a VRF, which resides
>>>> on
>>>> the same PE as the sender VRF.
>>>>
>>>> The only way I see this could be done is by putting one of the VRFs
>>>> into a
>>>> logical system and presenting the traffic over an lt interface. The
>>>> problem
>>>> is that this type of design does not scale. What if down the road I had
>>>> another customer which wanted to receive multicast data from both the
>>>> current sender/receiver? I'd then need to put it into another logical
>>>> system (basically introducing another PE, being a logical one)?
>>>>
>>>> What options do I have?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladi
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>