Thanks Caillin/Saku/Adam, this differentiation of VPLS LDP Sig compared to BGP Sig as it relates to loop prevention during redundant pe/ce at edge is of interest to me...(I actually had a l2 forwarding loop scare me to death and had to shut down backside c-to-c during maintenance window a few months ago)....i walked away from that with a big question in my head as to how does customer spanning tree feed into the loop prevention of split horizon groups within a vpls as how pw forwarding treatment occurs...and I thought to myself , it probably doesn't... which has had me wondering about this for a few months....
BUT, now y'all mention that bgp signaled vpls as it relates to redundant pe/ce avoids this.... correct? I have adam's link, thanks adam, but does anyone have more links related to understanding all that? Adam's implementation link.... http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.3/lxvpn/co nfiguration/guide/lesc43pbb.html#wp1183684 Aaron -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Caillin Bathern Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:54 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; adam.vitkov...@swan.sk Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS Adam, My comment related to BGP VPLS with BGP signalling. When you have two VPLS PE interfaces with matching VE ID and VE block offset (in the same VPLS) then you fall to the standard BGP tie-breakers for route selection such as local-preference. Hence you can have a single switched CE site connect to two PEs and not have a loop between the core and access as you do with LDP signalled VPLS. Caillin -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 6:30 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS On (2013-04-23 09:35 +0200), Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Anyways my question was regarding the "old school" VPLS as we all do > it right now and LDP vs BGP signaling in particular. > I'd like to find out which one do you folks prefer and why. BGP, for all customer stuff, BGP. LDP only for IGP labels, and hopefully not even that in 3 years time. For VPLS if you're already doing discovery via BGP, running tLDP is just additional complexity you don't need. LDP clearly scales poorly, BGP is O(1) session to cater n remote PE, LDP is O(n) If you're not doing discovery via BGP, configuration is awkward and complex compared to L3 MPLS VPN. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ 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/ -- Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/