MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?

Fri Jan 2 02:17:37 UTC 2015

On Thursday, January 1, 2015, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:

> Running various functions on a couple small VM clusters makes a lot of
> sense.
>
>
>

I agree, it makes some sense, especially if you are control plane bound.
But, nearly all my routers run between 1% and 10% cpu.

Ymmv. I have feeling that running a bgp rr on cheap / standard / commidity
vm is pretty exotic from a support perspective.

So running a bgp rr on a vm may make sense in theory, but my network
control planes are not too busy and vm bgp is a unique/ exotic support
model.

Your network is probably different

>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Jeff Tantsura" <jeff.tantsura at ericsson.com <javascript:;>>
> To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org <javascript:;>>
> Cc: nanog at 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 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
>
> > On Jan 1, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
>
>