MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?

Jeff Tantsura jeff.tantsura at
Fri Jan 2 17:33:34 UTC 2015



> On Jan 2, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Rob Shakir <rjs at> wrote:
>> On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura at> 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 still run commercial code base, mostly feature set and resilience.
> And test coverage. As Saku alluded to earlier in the thread, rr<->rr-client outages are painful. I’ve certainly seen a number of them caused by inter-op issues between implementations. Running at least one RR which matches the code-base of the client means that at least you’re likely to have fallen within the test-cases of that vendor’s implementation.
> r.

More information about the NANOG mailing list