In my case I have a deal with MX80 2011/3/1 Phil Bedard <[email protected]>: > 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/ > > >
-- Best regards, Egor Zimin _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
