XR supports it in the latest revision, didn't know about the 3600 support. I guess this is the C-NSP list. We have thousands of non-Cisco nodes deployed using RSVP-TE in the access layer but it requires stitching at the service layer to scale. It has shown to be scalable at least for us.
One thing starting to come back is the use of unnumbered interfaces and Cisco has some auto-IP stuff via LLDP to help with ring deployments. L2 makes ring insertions somewhat easier. Unified/Seamless MPLS has been around for years and would be ideal but the end nodes have traditionally had poor BGP support. The agg nodes will do BGP-LU to LDP translation but the LFIB capacity is fairly small. Requires using something like LDP DOD to really work. The nodes support using an aggregate or default prefix for the LDP IGP route. From: Adam Vitkovsky Sent: 7/8/2013 4:12 To: Phil Bedard; Andrew Miehs; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE >Or IP FRR If you aren't in a ring scenario which breaks it. Not anymore, XR and XE and I believe the newest me-3600 code also does support IP FRR with Remote-LFA which solves the LFA inequality problem in ring topologies. And XR supports te-tunnel to be selected as backup interface allowing you to take care of any corner cases that rLFA can't cover. adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
