On 5 July 2018 14:08:02 BST, Aaron Gould <aar...@gvtc.com> wrote:
>I really like the simplicity of my ldp-based l2vpn's... eline and elan
>
>You just made me realize how that would change if I turned off ldp.
>
>So, SR isn't able to signal those l2circuits, and manual vpls instances
>?
>... I would have to do all that with bgp ? I use bgp in some cases for
>rfc4762, but not for simple martini l2circuits.
>
>My entire cell backhaul environment is based on ldp based pseudowires.
Hi Aaron,
Yes that would be a change in your existing setup but only if you turned off
LDP. SR fully supports (on paper at least!) running LDP and SR simultaneously
so you wouldn't need a big bang approach and have to hard switch if you were to
move to BGP signalled services and/or SR. However, I don't think SR is designed
to be run along side LDP long term either. I'm sure bugs will pop up, if you
can use LDP for only signalling L2 VPNs somehow and SR for transport LSP
signalling you wouldn't need to migrate. I think on Juniper you might be able
to raise the "preference" (Administrative Distance is Cisco parlance) of LDP
separate from the IGP but I don't think you can do that on Cisco?
I'm ranting a bit here, but I'd personally look to move to all BGP signalled
services if I was moving to SR. You have one protocol for IGP transport (SR
extended OSPF or SR extended IS-IS) and one protocol for all service transport
signalling (BGP). We (the industry) have our lovely L3 VPNs already, with
standard BGP communities, RTs and RDs and then a bunch of policies and route
reflectors to efficiently control route distribution and label allocation. We
also have high-availability of that information through RR clusters and
features like BGP Add-Path and PIC. We also have good scalability from
signalled services using FAT and Entropy labels.
Now with BGP signalled EVPN using MPLS for transport instead of VXLAN, we have
again RTs and RDs and communities et al. This means we can use similar policies
on the same RR's to control route (MAC or GW) and label distribution
efficiently and only to those who exactly need to carry the extra state. We get
to use the same HA and scalability benefits too. Even with BGP signalled and
BGP based auto discovery for ELINE services, we control who has that AFI/SAFI
combo enabled cleanly. With LDP, the configuration and control are both fully
distributed to the PEs. Not a major issue, but "BGP for everything" helps to
keep the design, implementation and limitations of all our services more
closely aligned.
If you're also using FlowSpec, BMP, BGP-LS, BGP-MDT etc, it makes sense to me
to keep capitalising on that single signaling protocol for all services.
Cheers,
James.
P.s. sorry, on a plane so I've got time to kill.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
