The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Sep> msg00510



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

MPLS/BGP routing question

  • From: Chris Flores <chris.flores@onfiber.com>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:30:25 -0500
  • Cc: "'Eric Osborne'" <eosborne@cisco.com>, "'Javier Antich'" <javier.antich@telindus.es>, Michel Redondo Ferrero <mredondo@idecnet.com>, mpls@UU.NET

Eric - 

I agree. It is perfectly valid to tunnel packets through the core via MPLS,
thereby avoiding a full IBGP mesh. In the steady state, we agree. I just
wanted to point out that BGP is needed in the core in case MPLS fails for
any reason. If the MPLS LSPs are not available, then the core will need BGP.


c 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:23 AM
To: Chris Flores
Cc: 'Eric Osborne'; 'Javier Antich'; Michel Redondo Ferrero; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: MPLS/BGP routing question 


Chris> My point is  this. BGP (specifically iBGP) is needed  in the core for
Chris> packets not utilizing a MPLS VPN or if MPLS fails. It may be the case
Chris> that there is a full mesh of MPLS LSPs (PE-PE) that serve all traffic
Chris> flows within  the network -  customers, external peers, etc.  What if
Chris> MPLS fails? Yes, VPN customers are  out of luck till the MPLS VPN can
Chris> be re-established.  However, external peer traffic,  etc should still
Chris> route as if the network did not implement MPLS.

I don't  agree.  I think that  even with respect to  public Internet routes,
there are a  number of advantages to NOT distributing all  the routes to all
the core  routers.  I think it  is a perfectly  valid use of MPLS  to tunnel
packets through the core so as to avoid the need for a full IBGP mesh.