[j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own VRF?

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, January 27, 2012 12:36:50 AM Keegan Holley wrote:

> What do you use for signaling?  It seems like overkill to
> keep one kind of traffic from using the MPLS operations
> if there are already LSP's between the source and the
> destination and L3/L2vpn traffic flowing between them. 
> You also give up some of the MPLS knobs such as FRR and
> link/node protection. What do you gain by doing this?

We signal mostly by LDP, and scarcely by RSVP.

One of the main reasons we allow Internet traffic to be 
forwarded by MPLS through the network is to enjoy a BGP-free 
core for IPv4. That's the only relation the global table has 
with MPLS. Otherwise, MPLS is used strictly for MPLS-based 
applications.

We only use RSVP for p2mp LSP's for our BGP-MVPN Multicast 
(IPTv) services, and also for focused TE requirements, e.g., 
unequal cost paths within the core.

As the TE is mostly for Internet traffic, we don't turn on 
FRR for that. We only enable FRR for the p2mp RSVP-based 
LSP's, and those are dedicated to IPTv.

Mark.
-------------- 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/juniper-nsp/attachments/20120127/43a8bd13/attachment-0001.sig>