In the Juniper case you can get around the double replication on the M/T by using a tunnel services PIC and using a tunnel interface to terminate the P2MP LSP. Just a limitation of the platforms.
Phil On 2/28/11 10:44 AM, "Egor Zimin" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello, guys > >Today I noticed very interesting difference in implementation of P2MP >LSPs by Cisco and Juniper. >The difference is related to explicit/implicit-null behavior of S2L >Sub-LSP tailend routers: >Cisco implementation: >(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_te_p2mp_p >s6922_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html) >--- >The tailend routers allocate unreserved labels, which are greater than >15 and do not include implicit or explicit null labels. >--- > >In Juniper's implementation tailend allocates implicit/explicit null >label as a usual. >As a consequence of this, (it looks like) we can have unnecessary >replication before "Bud" nodes. > >For example: >Let's consider this configuration: >### >label-switched-path LSP-P2MP-16--19 { > to 10.245.87.19; > p2mp TREE1; >} >label-switched-path LSP-P2MP-16--18 { > to 10.245.87.18; > p2mp TREE1; >} >label-switched-path LSP-P2MP-16--15 { > to 10.245.87.15; > p2mp TREE1; >} >label-switched-path LSP-P2MP-16--17 { > to 10.245.87.17; > p2mp TREE1; >} >### >> show mpls lsp p2mp ingress >Ingress LSP: 1 sessions >P2MP name: TREE1, P2MP branch count: 4 >To From State Rt P ActivePath LSPname >10.245.87.17 10.245.87.16 Up 0 * >LSP-P2MP-16--17 >10.245.87.15 10.245.87.16 Up 0 * >LSP-P2MP-16--15 >10.245.87.18 10.245.87.16 Up 0 * >LSP-P2MP-16--18 >10.245.87.19 10.245.87.16 Up 0 * >LSP-P2MP-16--19 >Total 4 displayed, Up 4, Down 0 >### >As you can see, there are four leaves. Three bottom leaves use the >same downstream interface: >### >> show rsvp session p2mp detail | match "PATH sentto" > PATH sentto: 10.245.87.146 (xe-0/0/2.0) 4 pkts > PATH sentto: 10.245.87.149 (xe-0/0/1.0) 2 pkts > PATH sentto: 10.245.87.149 (xe-0/0/1.0) 2 pkts > PATH sentto: 10.245.87.149 (xe-0/0/1.0) 3 pkts >### >> show rsvp session p2mp >Ingress RSVP: 18 sessions >P2MP name: TREE1, P2MP branch count: 4 >To From State Rt Style Labelin Labelout LSPname >10.245.87.17 10.245.87.16 Up 0 1 SE - 3 >LSP-P2MP-16--17 >10.245.87.15 10.245.87.16 Up 0 1 SE - 3 >LSP-P2MP-16--15 >10.245.87.18 10.245.87.16 Up 0 1 SE - 309200 >LSP-P2MP-16--18 >10.245.87.19 10.245.87.16 Up 0 1 SE - 309200 >LSP-P2MP-16--19 >Total 4 displayed, Up 4, Down 0 >### > >As you can see, we have two different out labels (3 and 309200) for >the same P2MP LSP. Label 3 is allocated by node 10.245.87.15 because >of PHP. > >Can anybody explain, what IETF speaks about this case ? Must tailend >routers allocate unreserved label or not ? I can't find any mention of >this case in RFCs (4875, 4461). > >-- >Best regards, >Egor Zimin >_______________________________________________ >cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
