Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920

On 30 January 2019 15:15:02 GMT, Aaron Gould wrote: >I read that SR/SPRING is an alternative to LDP or RSVP... seems that >SR/SPRING is a label distribution protocol. Meaning, in my mind, it's >a way >to learn labels...mpls labels I guess. If so, would we refer to EVPN >as >EVPN-SR? If so,

Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920

Ummm, that too. LOL -Aaron -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of James Bensley Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:05 AM To: Tom Ammon; Cisco-nsp List Subject: Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920 On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 02:36

Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920

I read that SR/SPRING is an alternative to LDP or RSVP... seems that SR/SPRING is a label distribution protocol. Meaning, in my mind, it's a way to learn labels...mpls labels I guess. If so, would we refer to EVPN as EVPN-SR? If so, would it follow that a non-sr network, one that has employed

Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 02:36, Tom Ammon wrote: > > Has anybody tried running segment routing on ASR920? If so, did you run in > to any caveats? What about EVPN over segment routing on that platform? The > SR configuration guide for this platform lists segment routing, but doesn't > call out EVPN

[c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920

Has anybody tried running segment routing on ASR920? If so, did you run in to any caveats? What about EVPN over segment routing on that platform? The SR configuration guide for this platform lists segment routing, but doesn't call out EVPN specifically - it only lists VPLS and L2VPN. Tom --

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing & BGP Prefix-SID

On 20 May 2017 at 05:03, Arthur Liew wrote: > Hi Folks, Hi, > Have anyone deployed and tested on IOS-XRv? What IOS-Xrv version are you using? > I'm trying on the idea of Cisco ACE with BGP LU (Prefix-SID), with the same > label index to IGP, but BGP still allocates its

[c-nsp] Segment Routing & BGP Prefix-SID

Hi Folks, Hey there ! I'm just watching the Ciscolive video on their Cisco Agile Carrier Ethernet BRKSPG-2518 Cisco EPN Carrier Ethernet and Mobile Backhaul Architecture Have anyone deployed and tested on IOS-XRv? I'm trying on the idea of Cisco ACE with BGP LU (Prefix-SID), with the same

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

On 9/Mar/17 12:12, Mark Austen wrote: > One nice thing about SR is the TI-LFA implementation - if you want to > do this with LDP it's not that nice. True, the TI-LFA in SR provides 100% coverage vs. regular LFA. But from experience, it's not a big-enough reason for me to migrate just yet.

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

On 4/Jan/17 06:25, Aaron wrote: > I run an MPLS network for an ISP and have heard about SR/SPRING but I don't > know much about it. > > What would you tell someone like me as to how I would benefit from SR/SPRING > in my MPLS network ? ...and if there isn't immediate benefit, are there >

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

From: Patrick Cole <z...@amused.net> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 11:16 PM To: Mohammad Khalil; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing Mohammad, If you look at the bottom of the document you will see that SR-TE is requiring IOS XE Everest 16.4

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

t; >Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:35 PM >To: Mark Tees; Aaron > Cc: Mohammad Khalil; Patrick Cole; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing > > >I've yet to even test it, but am very keen to, and to hear from others who >

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

Message- From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Aaron <aar...@gvtc.com> Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 23:50 To: 'Mark Tees' <markt...@gmail.com> Cc: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing Thanks Mark,

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

s [mailto:markt...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:42 PM > To: Aaron <aar...@gvtc.com> > Cc: Mohammad Khalil <eng_m...@hotmail.com>; Patrick Cole <z...@amused.net>; > CiscoNSP List <cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

To: Aaron <aar...@gvtc.com> Cc: Mohammad Khalil <eng_m...@hotmail.com>; Patrick Cole <z...@amused.net>; CiscoNSP List <cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing Two benefits I can think of: Label distribution witho

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

Two benefits I can think of: Label distribution without having to worry about LDP or LDPv6. Easy TE cases without having to worry about the state that comes with RSVP-TE. On Wednesday, 4 January 2017, Aaron wrote: > I run an MPLS network for an ISP and have heard about

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

I run an MPLS network for an ISP and have heard about SR/SPRING but I don't know much about it. What would you tell someone like me as to how I would benefit from SR/SPRING in my MPLS network ? ...and if there isn't immediate benefit, are there inevitable long-term benefits that I could reap by

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Patrick Cole <z...@amused.net> Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2017 5:56 AM To: CiscoNSP List Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing Hijacking this thread for some additional related questions; I've seen may be support for

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

Hijacking this thread for some additional related questions; I've seen may be support for SR with ISIS on IOS-XE, but I've found no info on being able to actually do SR TE (eg actually creating tunnels using a SR engineered path). Does anyone know if this is supported or is it just IOS XR at

[c-nsp] Segment Routing

Hi Everyone, Been doing a bit of reading on segment routing, and on paper it looks very interesting - Just wondering if anyone has deployed it, and what their experiences with it are? Coestinence with LDP is certainly a plus as migration from LDP->SR would be "easier"...theoretically, as

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

Hi all and thanks for the kind reply Will it work if I configured the command mpls ldp explicit-null ? BR, Mohammad > Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:51:07 -0400 > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing > From: mohan.nand...@gmail.com > To: eng_m...@hotmail.com > CC: cisco-nsp@puck.neth

[c-nsp] Segment Routing

Hi all I came across segment routing and tried to simulate it using the below topology CE1 -- XR1 -- XR2 -- CE2 ISIS is the running IGP between the XR boxes and below is the relevant configuration XR1 router isis 1 is-type level-2-only net 49.0001...0010.00 address-family ipv4

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

PHP will happen as they are back to back in your topology. The range on XR is between 16000-23999. Anything above the range will not be installed (16000+15001 = 31001). Cheers, -Mohan On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > Hi all > I came across segment

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

Hey Mohammad, ->The issue is that I cannot any labels imposed : RP/0/0/CPU0:XRnew#sh cef 20.20.20.20/32 | inc labels Sun Sep 13 11:37:37.416 UTC local label 17002 labels imposed {ImplNull} RP/0/0/CPU0:Clone#sh cef 10.10.10.10/32 | inc labels Sun Sep 13 11:37:54.372 UTC local label

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 6:16 PM Mark Tinka wrote: I don't dispute that BGP as a potential IGP will scale (look at iBGP today), but will it be quick? That's my concern. Well my point is it doesn't really need to be quick. With pre-programed loop-free backup path at each hop I don't

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

Hi, On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:54:35PM +0200, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: And with great innovation from Ahmed Bashandy, that's promised to be incorporated into SR, even the need for IGP to signal the failure of egress PE to ingress PE as fast as possible so that BGP can invoke PIC-core is rendered

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

Good read about BGP in different scenarios: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc-02 Guilherme Loch Góes On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:07:07 AM Adam Vitkovsky wrote: I'd like the BGP-LS to take

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:07:07 AM Adam Vitkovsky wrote: I'd like the BGP-LS to take over that role, with BGP-LS as IGP you would not need to worry about scalability, so you could still have a separate area (AS in case of BGP-LS) per each aggregation island for administrative purposes,

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

On (2013-08-12 14:38 +0200), Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hi Adam, What would be the drawbacks of using SPF/linkstate-based BGP for label propagation instead of ISIS or OSPF as IGPLDP? I see no reason why it wouldn't work, however your iBGP sessions would be unlabeled and routed natively. I

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

Hi Saku, What would be the drawbacks of using SPF/linkstate-based BGP for label propagation instead of ISIS or OSPF as IGPLDP? I see no reason why it wouldn't work, however your iBGP sessions would be unlabeled and routed natively. I personally prefer everything to be labeled in my network.

[c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

Hi Folks, What would be the drawbacks of using SPF/linkstate-based BGP for label propagation instead of ISIS or OSPF as IGPLDP? My point is: For simple single AS deployments SR is a great simplification and brings many enhancements. But as soon as you start to migrate your access areas into

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing (SR)

On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:38:17 PM Adam Vitkovsky wrote: So if such an essential change is being introduced into MPLS control and data plane, why not to use link-state BGP as IGPLDP? Because BGP is not a link state routing protocol. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally