[179296] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mohamed Kamal)
Wed Apr 8 05:11:38 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:11:31 +0300
From: Mohamed Kamal <mkamal@noor.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <55219036.2080403@noor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Here is Cisco's reply!
=E2=80=9CGiven PCEP=E2=80=99s main use-case is inter-area TE tunnels (or =
SDN controller in
TE environment) and ASR1K is not marketed for TE, support is unlikely=E2=80=
=9D
What is .. "not marketed for TE"?!=20
All in all, I don't mind replacing them with some cheaper, powerful, flex=
ible 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 tod=
ay
> I disagree! .. Engineering is all about optimization, and using an ASR1=
k
> (which is being marketed as an "edge/PE router") in my edge doesn't mea=
n
> 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 othe=
rs.
>
> 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" i=
s
> being required for this.
>
>> the demand for online calculation has increased - either due to depend=
encies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., SR), or more comple=
x 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 fut=
ure.
>
> 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@noor.net) wrote:
>>> I'm wondering, why there is no MPLS-TE PCE support for IOS-XE till no=
w?!
>>> =20
>>> Should I be getting a 9k/CRS on the edge to implement an automatic to=
ol
>>> 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=E2=80=A6).=20
>>
>> As such, the demand for online calculation has increased - either due =
to dependencies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., SR), or mo=
re complex constraints that cannot be well met by offline calculation or =
CSPF (e.g., path-diversity with disjoint head-end PEs). This demand is ma=
inly coming in higher-scale environments - and hence being implemented on=
IOS-XR within the Cisco environment today. I expect this is why IOS-XE i=
s lagging. There are certainly requests for support - but as Mark says, y=
ou=E2=80=99ll 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=E2=80=99=
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 =
=E2=80=9Cautomatic=E2=80=9D tools, and possibilities for offline calculat=
ion in the interim period.
>>
>> r.
>>
>
