On Friday, January 02, 2015 11:03:21 PM Daniel Rohan wrote:
Also think physical topologies like ethernet rings.
Where's the RR go in this topology?
In these topologies, I've been playing with having the RR's
in the core (i.e., on the other end of the PE Aggregation
routers terminating the
Given that you assign unique RD per PE, RR out of the forwarding path
provides you with a neat trick for fast convergence (and debugging
purposes) when CE has redundant paths to different PEs. Routes to those CEs
will be seen as different routes on RR.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Marcin
+100
Regards,
Jeff
On Jan 2, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Rob Shakir r...@rob.sh wrote:
On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com wrote:
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not on lsp flag
(different implementation have different names for it)
There are
On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com wrote:
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not on lsp flag
(different implementation have different names for it)
There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are many
reasons to
On Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:25:24 PM Tony Varriale
wrote:
Most vendors today have the performance numbers
(sometimes they aren't published publically) for routers
acting as RRs. Ask your vendor and pick one that suits
you. We generally buy the middle or most memory and
pick a
On Friday, January 02, 2015 04:17:37 AM Ca By wrote:
Ymmv. I have feeling that running a bgp rr on cheap /
standard / commidity vm is pretty exotic from a support
perspective.
Not really.
Since July last year.
The worst I've had was the HP server shutting down in a
London data centre due
On Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:37:25 PM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
Is there a good reason to use actual router hardware for
the route reflector role?
Nope.
It used to be code maturity - but major vendors are
supporting service-grade code on VM's.
Even a cheap server has more
CPU and
On Thursday, January 01, 2015 12:46:23 PM Marcin Kurek
wrote:
I am also aware of products like vMX or CSR1000v/XRv and
the example given by Saku makes me more interested in
licensing/pricing options.
Our network spans Africa, South Asia and Europe.
We have 2x RR's in each PoP running
On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:54:32 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not
on lsp flag (different implementation have different
names for it)
The hack needed when running a Junos-based RR in an MPLS
network to allow route reflection of l3vpn routes
On Friday, January 02, 2015 12:16:26 PM Andriy Bilous wrote:
Given that you assign unique RD per PE, RR out of the
forwarding path provides you with a neat trick for fast
convergence (and debugging purposes) when CE has
redundant paths to different PEs. Routes to those CEs
will be seen as
On Friday, January 02, 2015 12:09:36 AM Nick Hilliard wrote:
there are patches for both code-bases and some
preliminary support for vpnv4 in quagga, but other than
that neither currently supports either ldp or the
vpnv4/vpnv6 address families in the main-line code.
LDP support would not be
On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:57:41 AM Mike Hammett wrote:
Running various functions on a couple small VM clusters
makes a lot of sense.
We treat our CSR1000v RR's as dedicated islands. No other
functions run on them, nor do we cluster them.
Don't want what fun could arise :-)...
Mark.
On 02/01/2015 18:24, Mark Tinka wrote:
Wish I could - to be honest, these don't give me enough
comfort for a production network.
It's not even possible for a vpn enabled network right now. Having said
that, I use bird in anger for ixp route server functionality (i.e. ebgp
route reflector) and
...@ericsson.com javascript:;
To: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org javascript:;
Cc: nanog@nanog.org javascript:;
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 7:54:32 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not on lsp flag
(different
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Keep in mind - some architectures, such as seamless MPLS would require a
RR to be in the fast path.
+1
Also think physical topologies like ethernet rings. Where's the RR go in
this topology?
-Dan
Hello all,
Thank you for insightful answers.
I was thinking mostly about the second scenario Chuck mentioned - where
some traffic naturally flows through the routers that are the RRs
because of MPLS LSP. Setting next-hop-self on all reflected routes would
be misconfiguration IMHO.
I am
On 12/31/2014 6:08 AM, Marcin Kurek wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
- Partition RRs
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
- Use a high-end processor with maximum memory
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 7:54:32 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not on lsp flag
(different implementation have different names for it)
There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are many
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not on lsp flag
(different implementation have different names for it)
There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are many
reasons to still run commercial code base, mostly feature set and resilience.
Regards,
Jeff
Is there a good reason to use actual router hardware for the route
reflector role? Even a cheap server has more CPU and memory. If it is not
in the forwarding path, this is a computing task - not a move packets at
line speed task.
Are anyone using Bird, Quagga etc. for this?
Regards,
Baldur
On 01/01/2015 21:37, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Are anyone using Bird, Quagga etc. for this?
there are patches for both code-bases and some preliminary support for
vpnv4 in quagga, but other than that neither currently supports either ldp
or the vpnv4/vpnv6 address families in the main-line code.
: Re: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?
You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support not on lsp flag
(different implementation have different names for it)
There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are
many reasons to still run commercial code base
Hi everyone,
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
- Partition RRs
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
- Use a high-end processor with maximum memory
- Use peer groups
- Tune RR routers for
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, Marcin Kurek not...@marcinkurek.com
wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
- Partition RRs
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
- Use a
On 31/12/2014 12:08, Marcin Kurek wrote:
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
- Partition RRs
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
- Use a high-end processor with maximum memory
- Use peer
On 12/31/14 4:08 AM, Marcin Kurek wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
- Partition RRs
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
I'd find it odd if the RR were the nexthop for
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:08:15PM +0100, Marcin Kurek wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
- Partition RRs
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
- Use a high-end
On (2014-12-31 12:05 -0500), Chuck Anderson wrote:
Hey,
are the RRs, via an MPLS LSP for example. That latter is fine in many
cases, the former is not. E.g. I would argue that a P-router can be
an RR if desired.
There is no compelling advantage. No budget is too thin for 3 gray NPE-G1, if
Hi,
Right, one is when besides forwarding packets a router also functioning as a
RR, another - when RR sets NH to itself and hence forces all the traffic to
pass thru the router in fast path.
Keep in mind - some architectures, such as seamless MPLS would require a RR to
be in the fast path.
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
this remains contentious. there are those who think having the control
plane not congruent to the data plane is a recipe for really fun
debugging and has other issues.
randy
.
Yn
- Reply message -
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
To: Marcin Kurek not...@marcinkurek.com
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group nanog@nanog.org
Subject: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?
Date: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 9:36 PM
- Move RRs out of the forwarding path
this remains
31 matches
Mail list logo
