Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
bedard.phil at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 13:11:04 UTC 2015
One of the downsides to having four (at least) different control plane operating systems across your product lines.
From: "Mohamed Kamal" <mkamal at noor.net>
Sent: 4/8/2015 5:13 AM
To: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
Here is Cisco's reply!
“Given PCEP’s main use-case is inter-area TE tunnels (or SDN controller in
TE environment) and ASR1K is not marketed for TE, support is unlikely”
What is .. "not marketed for TE"?!
All in all, I don't mind replacing them with some cheaper, powerful, flexible and SDN-ready juniper MX that are marketed for TE.
Core Network Sr. Engineer
On 4/5/2015 10:42 PM, Mohamed Kamal wrote:
>> and hence being implemented on IOS-XR within the Cisco environment today
> I disagree! .. Engineering is all about optimization, and using an ASR1k
> (which is being marketed as an "edge/PE router") in my edge doesn't mean
> that my network is not a "high-scale environment", it does mean that it
> fits my needs in this location, where other IOS-XR (ASR9k) fits in others.
> Plus, PCEP is no magic, Juniper's MX series starting from the vMX is
> supporting PCEP. They didn't claim that, a "higher-scale environment" is
> being required for this.
>> the demand for online calculation has increased - either due to dependencies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., SR), or more complex constraints that cannot be well met by offline calculation or CSPF
> That's why PCEP support should be added to the road-map in the near future.
> Mohamed Kamal
> Core Network Sr. Engineer
> On 4/5/2015 8:33 PM, Rob Shakir wrote:
>> On 30 March 2015 at 15:42:59, Mohamed Kamal (mkamal at noor.net) wrote:
>>> I'm wondering, why there is no MPLS-TE PCE support for IOS-XE till now?!
>>> Should I be getting a 9k/CRS on the edge to implement an automatic tool
>>> to build MPLS-TE tunnels!
>> In general, PCE(P) implementations have been limited. IMHO the last 10 years of RSVP-TE management has generally been done with auto-mesh tools, or in-house driven offline path calculation tools (e.g., WANDL, Cariden, Aria…).
>> As such, the demand for online calculation has increased - either due to dependencies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., SR), or more complex constraints that cannot be well met by offline calculation or CSPF (e.g., path-diversity with disjoint head-end PEs). This demand is mainly coming in higher-scale environments - and hence being implemented on IOS-XR within the Cisco environment today. I expect this is why IOS-XE is lagging. There are certainly requests for support - but as Mark says, you’ll need to interface with your account team to figure out when code will be available for your platform.
>> As to whether you should buy an IOS XR device for your edge, I’m not sure what kind of logic would mean that device selection is solely based on PCEP support :-). I would certainly look more into the existing “automatic” tools, and possibilities for offline calculation in the interim period.
More information about the NANOG