> There has been quite a bit of talk about this in past posts on this list. Now that you mentioned it I recall the discussions.
> Generally, I'd recommend IS-IS because as a single Level IGP, it scales very well. And I did support this. However now facing real world restrictions of 12K routes per ME (app template) or ASR901 I could probably use some separation for future proofing the network. > 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). Way back when I haven't had any major problems with inter-area or inter-as MPLS-TE, or MVPN for that matter -but that wasn't on ME :). > 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 So ISIS L2 everywhere though Edge and Metro-E Access rings are not continuous L2 but rather separate domains interconnected with BGP-LS please? -Which I would now accomplish with RFC3107 in the meantime. adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
