On Thursday, February 06, 2014 05:25:49 PM Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > 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.
Practically, when you run L1/L2 levels, you end up having to do Route Leaking (i.e., redistribute L2 into L1), meaning you come off with the same number of routes as you had before going multi-level. You could summarize L2 routes and redistribute those into L1, but you end up with sub-optimal routing (which is why I recommend turning off the ATT bit when doing L1/L2 routing anyway). > 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 :). You can use expanded loose hops to string an LSP across IGP level domains, but it adds complexity. Also, p2mp RSVP-TE didn't support expanded loose hops until now (well, there is an I-D that I saw going around). > 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. Right, although I'm not sure BGP-LS will buy you FIB space savings, as the idea is, really, to redistribute IGP routing across a BGP domain. So you get scaling due to avoiding IGP- style messages, but not sure you save much on actual routes. But then again, because it's BGP, you should be able to apply filtering to limit what gets into the FIB, so yes, it could work. 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/
