Re: [c-nsp] Re ASR9000 Multicast over P2MP TE tunnels
On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 09:18:43 AM Catalin Petrescu wrote: Another test we did is to have the xr as a receiver , the p2mp tunnel is building , but as you said no LSP-VIF interface , thus the rpf check will fail. I never got it to work as advertised and ended up using mldp. I know Cisco were pushing mLDP more that p2mp RSVP-TE. However, they have had p2mp RSVP-TE support for a while now, and I even know of inter-op tests between an ASR9000 and an MX480 that work. Perhaps best to open a case. That said, I'm also in favour of mLDP these days. It's simpler and just as effective for general Multicast use- cases. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Re ASR9000 Multicast over P2MP TE tunnels
Thanks. Yeah mLDP is nicer for mvpn. We're playing/experimenting with P2MP tunnels for IPTV and with FRR protection. So, what I'm trying to do is map global multicast traffic to P2MP, not vrf traffic. I'm not seeing anything going trough. I wanted to check if anyone has configured this before in case I indeed missed some commands. Regards On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 09:18:43 AM Catalin Petrescu wrote: Another test we did is to have the xr as a receiver , the p2mp tunnel is building , but as you said no LSP-VIF interface , thus the rpf check will fail. I never got it to work as advertised and ended up using mldp. I know Cisco were pushing mLDP more that p2mp RSVP-TE. However, they have had p2mp RSVP-TE support for a while now, and I even know of inter-op tests between an ASR9000 and an MX480 that work. Perhaps best to open a case. That said, I'm also in favour of mLDP these days. It's simpler and just as effective for general Multicast use- cases. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Re ASR9000 Multicast over P2MP TE tunnels
Hi, I think you are referring to this test http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2011-2015/MPLSEWC2013/EANTC-MPLSEWC2013-WhitePaper-5.1.pdf , page 12 goes into detail about the issues and fixes. For 1st problem this is fixed on jnp with mvpn-iana-rt-import. Need to load up the lab again to look into second one. The paper doesn't say what version they are running on asr as per cisco documentation only static configuration is available thus only S-PMSI is advertised at least in 4.3.2. Regards, Catalin Petrescu On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 09:18:43 AM Catalin Petrescu wrote: Another test we did is to have the xr as a receiver , the p2mp tunnel is building , but as you said no LSP-VIF interface , thus the rpf check will fail. I never got it to work as advertised and ended up using mldp. I know Cisco were pushing mLDP more that p2mp RSVP-TE. However, they have had p2mp RSVP-TE support for a while now, and I even know of inter-op tests between an ASR9000 and an MX480 that work. Perhaps best to open a case. That said, I'm also in favour of mLDP these days. It's simpler and just as effective for general Multicast use- cases. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Re ASR9000 Multicast over P2MP TE tunnels
On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:42:29 AM Cydon Satyr wrote: Yeah mLDP is nicer for mvpn. We're playing/experimenting with P2MP tunnels for IPTV and with FRR protection. I originally used p2mp RSVP-TE for IPTv, but I'm also comfortable using mLDP for IPTv as well. There is work ongoing to add LFA support to mLDP, and in that case, the FRR argument for keeping IPTv on p2mp RSVP-TE will be out the window. That said, I've been happy with convergence times using hardware-assited BFD which would make pre-mLDP-LFA scenarios workable, considering how well mLDP scales and how much more complex p2mp RSVP-TE is to configure in large networks. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Re ASR9000 Multicast over P2MP TE tunnels
On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:47:14 AM Catalin Petrescu wrote: I think you are referring to this test http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2011 -2015/MPLSEWC2013/EANTC-MPLSEWC2013-WhitePaper-5.1.pdf , No, not that test. The test I'm talking about is in a live operator. But thanks for the link, anyway :-). The paper doesn't say what version they are running on asr as per cisco documentation only static configuration is available thus only S-PMSI is advertised at least in 4.3.2. I ran a PoC in Raleigh at the end of last year with Cisco, and they supported both I- and S-PMSI on the ASR9000. Par-for-par, I'm now satisfied with using an ASR9000 as a video-enabled edge router. The only reason we always stuck to Juniper, until now, is because they had a working NG-MVPN implementation. Cisco have now come to the party, both in terms of p2mp RSVP-TE and mLDP. So they are certainly on my radar if we need to deploy edge routers. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
