[j-nsp] Best route reflector platform

[Nick Ryce]

Hi Mark,

Re the control plane L2VPN interop issues.

I believe this is meant to have been fixed in 15.3(2)S.  Currently about
to start testing it in the lab and will report back.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3600x_3800x/software/relea
se/15.3_2_S/configuration/guide/swmpls.html#wp1285989

Nick

-- 
Nick Ryce

Fluency Communications Ltd.
e. nick at fluency.net.uk
w. http://fluency.net.uk/
t. 0845 874 7000





On 14/04/2013 17:47, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

>On Monday, February 25, 2013 04:56:39 PM Benny Amorsen
>wrote:
>
>> Dedicating an MX routing engine to the task seems a bit
>> silly, particularly since it would probably have to be
>> an MX240 due to the limitations of the MX80 RE.
>
>A long-standing complaint of mine, for those who've seen
>most of my ranting about the same on this list.
>
>Mind you, I know several networks using M120's and
>MX240's/480's as route reflectors, simply because those are
>the "smallest" boxes with the "largest" memory for dedicated
>route reflection.
>
>I refuse to give in to that nonesense.
>
>> On the Cisco side the answer is ASR1k, but it seems less
>> clear-cut with Juniper.
>
>ASR1001 with 16GB DRAM. What more do you want, really?
>
>My only issue with Cisco route reflectors in a Juniper
>network (or vice versa) "was" the lack of compatibility in
>control plane l2vpn NLRI (where Juniper signals BGP NLRI for
>l2circuit-style (or l2vpn as it's known at Juniper) while
>Cisco is expecting VPLS-style, for a VPLS environment.
>
>I'm currently getting this confirmed as we're planning a
>major network upgrade, particularly for compatibility
>between both vendors re: MCAST-NLRI in NG-MVPN deployments
>(inet-mvpn as they call it at Juniper).
>
>Will report back if I find out anything interesting.
>
>Mark.