Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
Mohamed Kamal
mkamal at noor.net
Wed Apr 8 16:06:30 UTC 2015
Yes, indeed! Things like VPLS, full-features ESI and PCEP exist on
IOS-XR but not IOS and IOS-XE!
ISSU and HA operates differently between IOS-XE and NX-OS!
Their claim is not even logical, the ASR1k is supporting 600 TE tunnels
head-end, and up-to 10k midpoint! So, if I had an average of 30 ASR1k in
the edge, each with 500 TE, there will be over 15000 TE tunnels in the
core which will be creating a need for automatic tool such as NorthStar
of Juniper!
Mohamed Kamal
Core Network Sr. Engineer
On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
> One of the downsides to having four (at least) different control plane
> operating systems across your product lines.
>
> Phil
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Mohamed Kamal <mailto:mkamal at noor.net>
> Sent: 4/8/2015 5:13 AM
> To: NANOG <mailto: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.
>
> Mohamed Kamal
> 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.
> >>
> >> r.
> >>
> >
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list