(RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721
http://packetpushers.net/author/dwinkworth/
From: Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net
To: Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net:
On Friday, January 27, 2012 02:30:35 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
I agree... I think. MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm
and the IGP only core of P routers is a plus.
Well, I'm not so sure MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm
per se. If you're
On Saturday, January 28, 2012 07:59:36 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
Makes sense. I'm still straddling the line between large
enterprise and small service provider so I haven't felt
the resource bite from RSVP everywhere. Interesting to
hear that perspective though. I've seen RSVP work in a
We use RSVP exclusively in our business access and core networks due to markets
wanting the 50ms protection for services like cell backhaul and CES. The
boxes we use are fairly small and cheap and handle RSVP fairly well (not C or J
but A). We do break up our access networks into multiple
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote:
Keeping it really stupid is what we're after :-).
Mark.
We run Internet in a VRF, but I have to agree with Mark's comments.
Unfortunately, there are lots of Engineers/Vendors/Security
Experts/Auditors who think that
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net:
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 08:55:07 AM Derick Winkworth
wrote:
http://packetpushers.net/internet-as-a-service-in-an-mpls
-cloud/
We also want to avoid putting too much reliance on MPLS for
basic services like Internet access. We relegate
On Friday, January 27, 2012 12:36:50 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
What do you use for signaling? It seems like overkill to
keep one kind of traffic from using the MPLS operations
if there are already LSP's between the source and the
destination and L3/L2vpn traffic flowing between them.
You
2012/1/26 Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net:
On Friday, January 27, 2012 12:36:50 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
What do you use for signaling? It seems like overkill to
keep one kind of traffic from using the MPLS operations
if there are already LSP's between the source and the
destination and
Why not FRR everything? The control plane hit is negligable even if
your internet users wouldn't notice, care about, or even understand
the improvements.
FRRed traffic can follow very fancy routes eating bandwidth on the way. FRR
for high loads is like sending trucks from a speedway to a
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru:
Why not FRR everything? The control plane hit is negligable even if
your internet users wouldn't notice, care about, or even understand
the improvements.
FRRed traffic can follow very fancy routes eating bandwidth on the way. FRR
for high loads is
why would FRR LSP's take a route different than what the IGP would
converge to.
Because FRR uses a path from a different entry (PLP) to probably a
different exit (say, next-next-hop). When normal LSP (either SPF or CSPF
calculated) is a path from head-end to tail-end. Whether this happens
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru:
why would FRR LSP's take a route different than what the IGP would
converge to.
Because FRR uses a path from a different entry (PLP) to probably a different
exit (say, next-next-hop). When normal LSP (either SPF or CSPF calculated)
is a path from
On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
2012/1/26 Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru:
why would FRR LSP's take a route different than what the IGP would
converge to.
Because FRR uses a path from a different entry (PLP) to probably a different
exit
Because FRR uses a path from a different entry (PLP) to probably a
different
Ups, I meant PLR, of course.
exit (say, next-next-hop). When normal LSP (either SPF or CSPF
calculated)
is a path from head-end to tail-end. Whether this happens often or rare,
the
need to care how your
I think Pavel is speaking of the case where the PLR is more than one hop from
the ingress node. It is very topology dependent but you can end up with
bypasses or detours taking a different path than the IGP especially when its a
few hops from the ingress node. Also ring topologies introduce
On Friday, January 27, 2012 02:30:35 AM Keegan Holley wrote:
I agree... I think. MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm
and the IGP only core of P routers is a plus.
Well, I'm not so sure MPLS has a better forwarding paradigm
per se. If you're talking about raw forwarding performance,
On Friday, January 27, 2012 03:48:23 AM Pavel Lunin wrote:
What the VRF-based Internet users will definitely notice
is (looks like RAS is tired of telling this story) is
ICMP tunneling and consequent hard to interpret delay
values. People are very suspicious to the numbers. This
is almost
: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:05 AM
Subject: [j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own VRF?
Hi
How should the global Internet routes be organized in IP/MPLS network?
Should they be put into global (inet.0) routing table or in their own
VRF (e.g. internet.inet.0)? Assume same P
I think in large part it depends on your goal.
I personally chose to keep everything out of my inet.0 table that wasn't
core related.
From this I gained a couple of things.
1. Only the PE's that I want to have the full internet table have it.
2. My inet.0 table is small and it makes
19 matches
Mail list logo
