[179270] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Shakir)
Sun Apr 5 16:29:32 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 21:29:33 +0100
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
To: Mohamed Kamal <mkamal@noor.net>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <55219036.2080403@noor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 5 April 2015 at 20:43:24, Mohamed Kamal (mkamal=40noor.net) wrote:
> and hence being implemented on IOS-XR within the Cisco environment toda=
y=C2=A0
I disagree=21 .. Engineering is all about optimization, and using an ASR1=
k=C2=A0
(which is being marketed as an =22edge/PE router=22) in my edge doesn't m=
ean=C2=A0
that my network is not a =22high-scale environment=22, it does mean that =
it=C2=A0
fits my needs in this location, where other IOS-XR (ASR9k) fits in others=
.=C2=A0
Plus, PCEP is no magic, Juniper's MX series starting from the vMX is=C2=A0=
supporting PCEP. They didn't claim that, a =22higher-scale environment=22=
is=C2=A0
being required for this.=C2=A0
I did not say that a high-scale environment is required. Just that as far=
as I have seen a number of deployments (e.g., Internet core/peering-edge=
) that are stating requirements for TE+PCEP are of the traffic scale that=
XR boxes are likely to be more widely deployed. IMHO, it=E2=80=99s this =
that means that XR is seeing the *first* implementations.
Some very large networks (including some that I have responsibility for) =
make extensive use of IOS XE, and hence there are also requests for PCEP =
implementations there. I encourage you to request it of Cisco too=21
r.
