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

[Derick Winkworth]

I didn't think the design was that complicated.  Need to get default route into customer VRFs.  Need to support "firewall-in-the-cloud."

Done.  With reporting and tiered bandwidth.  

Agree with Mark's points below, however.  We started off like "weeeeee!" when it came to MPLS-TE... but then decided to just use LDP by default and MPLS-TE as the exception.  Also, we could have put the internet into an LSYS.  In fact...  now I'm thinking we should do that.

For stuff in the same data center as the internet pipe, we are seeing ~1ms of delay from edge-to-edge.

 
Derick Winkworth 
CCIE #15672 (RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721 
http://packetpushers.net/author/dwinkworth/

________________________________
 From: Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net>
To: Pavel Lunin <plunin at senetsy.ru> 
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own VRF?
 
On Friday, January 27, 2012 03:48:23 AM Pavel Lunin wrote:

> What the VRF-based Internet users will definitely notice
> is (looks like RAS is tired of telling this story) is
> ICMP tunneling and consequent hard to interpret delay
> values. People are very suspicious to the numbers. This
> is almost impossible to explain, that the numbers,
> traceroute shows, have nothing to do with their
> kitty-photos-not-loading problem.

One of the reasons we:

    o Don't disable TTL propagation across our MPLS
      network.

    o Avoid, as much as possible, running MPLS LPS's
      that differ, greatly, from IGP routing (i.e., LDP
      vs. RSVP) for Internet traffic. This issue is
      massively exacerbated if you're running FA's,
      which is why if we have to send traffic down RSVP
      LSP's, we prefer IGP Shortcuts (Autoroute
      Announce).

Mark.

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp