The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Roger Clark Williams <rogerw@nordlink.com>]

Zeevik has it right, but to add emphasis, OSPF and IS-IS are the only
IGPs that support MPLS TE tunnels. Keep in mind, however, that Cisco IOS
to my understanding supports only 32 routing processes per router, and
OSPF must start a separate process each time it is used (unlike RIP and
BGP). I am not sure right now whether IS-IS supports the use of address
families within a single routing process (anyone?), but OSPF does not.
Therefore, OSPF is good as an IGP in an MPLS cloud but has some
limitations when used on a PE as both an IGP and a VPN routing
protocol.

Roger Williams

At 02:07 PM 7/4/2002, you wrote:

Note that both IS-IS and OSPF have TE extensions to support Traffic Engineering. Thus means that the IGP also holds the amount of reserved and unreserved bandwidth on each link, affinity of links, etc. so protocols like RSVP-TE can find a path with the appropriate attributes of the tunnel.

-----Original Message-----

From: Gowda, Sidde [mailto:sidde.gowda@intel.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 07:43

To: 'amos'; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com

Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: IGP

Hi

 

Not necessarily,

Any Link state protocols are OK for TE

But currently we have two ie OSPF and IS-IS.

So MPLS network uses them.

 

Siddu

-----Original Message-----

From: amos [mailto:slick@inter.net.il]

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:24 PM

To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com

Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: IGP

Hi

 

from all the examples i saw, the interior gateway routing protocol for an mpls network is alwayes

ospf or is-is. is there any particular reason for that ?

i have a production network runing eigrp as the igp, we are now starting to employ mpls in the network,

and i would like to avoid migrating into a different igp at the moment.

 

10x

 

Amos

 

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml