[179303] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Bedard)
Wed Apr 8 09:11:34 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Mohamed Kamal <mkamal@noor.net>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:11:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5524F0C3.3020704@noor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
One of the downsides to having four (at least) different control plane oper=
ating systems across your product lines.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: "Mohamed Kamal" <mkamal@noor.net>
Sent: =E2=80=8E4/=E2=80=8E8/=E2=80=8E2015 5:13 AM
To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation
Here is Cisco's reply!
=E2=80=9CGiven PCEP=E2=80=99s main use-case is inter-area TE tunnels (or SD=
N 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, flexib=
le 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 dependen=
cies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., SR), or more complex co=
nstraints 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 futur=
e.
>
> 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 now?=
!
>>> =20
>>> 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 y=
ears 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 more c=
omplex constraints that cannot be well met by offline calculation or CSPF (=
e.g., path-diversity with disjoint head-end PEs). This demand is mainly com=
ing in higher-scale environments - and hence being implemented on IOS-XR wi=
thin the Cisco environment today. I expect this is why IOS-XE is lagging. T=
here are certainly requests for support - but as Mark says, you=E2=80=99ll =
need to interface with your account team to figure out when code will be av=
ailable for your platform.
>>
>> As to whether you should buy an IOS XR device for your edge, I=E2=80=99m=
not sure what kind of logic would mean that device selection is solely bas=
ed on PCEP support :-). I would certainly look more into the existing =E2=
=80=9Cautomatic=E2=80=9D tools, and possibilities for offline calculation i=
n the interim period.
>>
>> r.
>>
>
