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

[Keegan Holley]

2012/1/26 Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net>:
> 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.

I agree... I think. MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm and the IGP
only core of P routers is a plus.
>
> 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.

Why not FRR everything? The control plane hit is negligable even if
your internet users wouldn't notice, care about, or even understand
the improvements.