On Thursday, February 06, 2014 04:36:45 PM Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > This is regarding Unified MPLS for LTE aka Hierarchical > MPLS with RFC3107. I'd like to know whether there are > networks out there running separate IGP processes per > each access or aggregation network. Or whether you are > running common IGP and using separate area/level for > each aggregation/access network please? > > I'm interested for any pros/cons either of these > solutions have. I guess it's no biggie whether there are > going to be separate processes in access and core not > talking to each other or just separate areas. Thank you > very much.
There has been quite a bit of talk about this in past posts
on this list.
Generally, I'd recommend IS-IS because as a single Level
IGP, it scales very well. You also want a single Level
because some MPLS-TE features don't work well across Levels
(although I know those restrictions are being lifted with
SR, but that's still a while away).
What Saku, I and others have loosely agreed on for the way
forward for deploying large scale IP/MPLS networks, edge-to-
edge, is:
- IS-IS L2-only in the core
- IS-IS L2-only in the edge
- IS-IS L2-only in the Metro-E Access
- BGP-LS between Metro-E rings and edge
- SR within IGP domains
Some of these may not be feasible now (like BGP-LS and SR),
but you could start with a base that leads you to that, and
I think RFC 3107 can help there.
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/
