On Monday, July 02, 2012 09:28:15 AM adam vitkovsky wrote: > Right the need to peer with every other PE in the mVPM > domain -but what would be the limitation on the PIM > adjacencies on modern PE boxes 1k maybe 2k?
Well, obviously with increase in control and data plane resources, you can scale better, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's still a good solution. The reason I like NG-MVPN (or BGP-MVPN if you work at Juniper) is that, if you think about it carefully, it's a Unicast operation in the core. That lends itself well to the l3vpn concept, which is why it scales very well, decoupling control plane functions from data plane functions, unlike classic Rosen MVPN's. p2mp RSVP-TE and mLDP actually create Unicast LSP's, and the NG-MVPN infrastructure simply replicates traffic across those Unicast LSP's in a way that looks like Multicast (so- called branch routers, mid-point routers and bud routers). It has good scaling properties, especially if you're running mLDP. On Cisco platform like the CRS, even though the MPLS data plane signaling is Unicast in nature, it still takes advantage of the fabric replication architecture within the chassis itself, which is good. > Yes that would mostly apply in mVPN implementations for > VPLS, however you'd need PIM at both ends for L3 VPNs > where you are basically extending customer's m-cast > domain over the your MPLS core You only really need PIM on the Sender PE-to-Sender CE link. All customers connected to Receiver PE routers only need to support IGMP. But like I said, many operators run PIM on the Receiver PE routers anyway as well, since it enables IGMP automatically and simplifies global device configuration. BGP takes care of distribution of PIM data across the backbone, negating the need for PIM in the core. MPLS takes care of forwarding of Multicast traffic from Source to Receiver, negating the need for IP/GRE in the core. > Hahaha right with my comment I haven't meant it quite > like that :) My point was that BGP is being asked to do a lot. Some of it makes sense, some of it doesn't. I'm not deluded, but I appreciate a good solution when I see one :-). > That's great news, but still it would be great to see the > support for the 7200 -but I guess it's not going to > happen as they would like to force us to upgrade to > ASR1k You won't see it for the same reasons you didn't get VPLS on the 7200 platform. The most you'd ever see on the 7200 platform re: NG-MVPN would be MCAST-NLRI support if it's being used a route reflector (which is what happened also with the VPLS l2vpn NLRI on the same platform), but that's all you'll see. You'll need to invest in the ASR1000 or ASR9000 if you want full NG-MVPN capability, from Cisco. Hope this helps. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
