Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation

Mohamed Kamal mkamal at noor.net
Sat Feb 20 15:11:04 UTC 2016


Just to follow-up; Cisco has offered segment-routing and entropy label 
use starting from 3.16/3.17 respectively.

Do Cisco see the 1k platform as an enterprise router?! Am I the only one 
here that assume that BGP-LS and PCEP support in the XE platforms is a 
must now after releasing the SR support?

Mohamed Kamal
Core Network Sr. Engineer

On 4/8/2015 6:06 PM, Mohamed Kamal wrote:
> 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