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

[Mark Tinka]

On Saturday, January 28, 2012 07:59:36 AM Keegan Holley 
wrote:

> Makes sense.  I'm still straddling the line between large
> enterprise and small service provider so I haven't felt
> the resource bite from RSVP everywhere.  Interesting to
> hear that perspective though.  I've seen RSVP work in a
> T-series/CRS based large network though so I guess
> platform choice ($$) and design play a role as well.

Running RSVP in the core is fairly common because there are 
fewer boxes to deal with, and the aggregation and edge parts 
of the network can simply run LDP, tunneling that inside an 
RSVP-based core as needed.

But in some cases (such as BGP-MVPN or end-to-end strict 
paths), one may need to run RSVP edge to edge, edge to 
aggregation, edge to core, e.t.c. This isn't always 
desirable, particularly if you want to make it avaialble as 
a blanket feature for customers that aren't going to pay 
additional for it (and why should they, it might not 
necessarily be adding any real value to them).

In our access, we have a number of ME3600X Ethernet 
switches. These are pretty powerful devices, but I'd also 
shudder as to how much RSVP state they can maintain as the 
network expands.

Besides, as I mentioned before, we like the MPLS topology to 
follow the IP topology, and LDP does this quite nicely. But 
if absolutely unavoidable, we will deploy RSVP.

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/20120128/3fcb49c5/attachment.sig>