Adam, My comment related to BGP VPLS with BGP signalling. When you have two VPLS PE interfaces with matching VE ID and VE block offset (in the same VPLS) then you fall to the standard BGP tie-breakers for route selection such as local-preference. Hence you can have a single switched CE site connect to two PEs and not have a loop between the core and access as you do with LDP signalled VPLS.
Caillin -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 6:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS On (2013-04-23 09:35 +0200), Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Anyways my question was regarding the "old school" VPLS as we all do > it right now and LDP vs BGP signaling in particular. > I'd like to find out which one do you folks prefer and why. BGP, for all customer stuff, BGP. LDP only for IGP labels, and hopefully not even that in 3 years time. For VPLS if you're already doing discovery via BGP, running tLDP is just additional complexity you don't need. LDP clearly scales poorly, BGP is O(1) session to cater n remote PE, LDP is O(n) If you're not doing discovery via BGP, configuration is awkward and complex compared to L3 MPLS VPN. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
