One of my use cases for the 920 was MVPN using mLDP Profile 1. I have it operating thus far without issue in my lab today on 03.16.01a.S
Darin ________________________________________ From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 6:50 AM To: Adam Vitkovsky; michalis.bersi...@hq.cyta.gr; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations On 19/Jan/16 14:31, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > I agree with general meaning of NG-MVPN. > But even with e.g. mLDP data-plane and BGP control plane there are plethora > of options so one is not sure what is the topic of discussion. > As for the mLDP one could be using Default/Partitioned MDT along with > P2MP/MP2MP tree. > And as for BGP control plane one could be using BGP-AD with or without > BGP-C-MCAST. > So a lot of ambiguity even though we narrow the discussion down to mLDP > data-plane and BGP control-plane. These are vendor-specific. In the RFC, it's basic I-PMSI vs. S-PMSI (data plane) or RPT-SPT vs. SPT-only (control plane), e.t.c. How the vendor actually implements them is unique to them (hence the fancy names some of these sub-features end up having). If you keep the baisc principles in mind, you'll be fine, especially in multi-vendor environments. 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/