[177151] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Tantsura)
Fri Jan 2 12:33:44 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 17:33:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7C3A6598-B4EB-44BA-BDC4-7EECB76DDD15@rob.sh>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
+100
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> wrot=
e:
>>=20
>> You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support "not on lsp" flag (d=
ifferent 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 resi=
lience.
>=20
> And test coverage. As Saku alluded to earlier in the thread, rr<->rr-clie=
nt outages are painful. I=92ve certainly seen a number of them caused by in=
ter-op issues between implementations. Running at least one RR which matche=
s the code-base of the client means that at least you=92re likely to have f=
allen within the test-cases of that vendor=92s implementation.
>=20
> r.
