From: Koen Zeilstra (koen@koenzeilstra.com)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 14:10:36 ART
Scott,
What do you mean exactly with 'rely on GRE under customer control'? Have
the customer run GRE tunnels to each location and run multicast trough the
tunnels?
thanks,
Koen
-----------------------
Pity the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
-- Don Marquis
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Scott Morris wrote:
| 1. The leaking of this isn't supported due to the complexity of the trees
| that may evolve here. If you don't use Cisco's MVPN concept and rely on GRE
| under customer control it IS possible to do Internet-based multicast. It's
| just not elegant. That's the issue all SPs have with it. Scalability and
| elegance.
|
| 2. PIM exchanges information on groups that are being used and trees that
| are formed. MSDP exchanges information on groups that COULD be used and
| source locations. So they are really two different concepts and necessary
| for Inter-AS operation.
|
| You use the multicast boundary (or bsr-border) to establish a border for
| your private groups and auto-rp/BSR elections. That keeps your tree
| separate from everyone else's.
|
| There is a "commserv" list on GroupStudy that is for the CCIE SP lab, you
| may check that out.
|
| HTH,
|
|
| Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
| #153, CISSP, et al.
| CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
| IPExpert VP - Curriculum Development
| IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
| smorris@ipexpert.com
| http://www.ipexpert.com
|
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Koen
| Zeilstra
| Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:00 AM
| To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
| Subject: inter vpn multicast and inter AS/MD multicast
|
| Hi Group,
|
| I have 2 interesting (I hope) multicast issues.
|
| 1. inter VPN multicast
|
| Imagine a MPLS/VPN based network. In short: Cisco supports MVPN's by
| encapsulating customer traffic in multicast GRE tunnels on the PE's.
| Exchanging mcast traffic with the internet or with other customers is not an
| option according to Cisco:
|
| [quote]
| Currently, only a single MVRF is supported per customer.
| This limitation precludes the customer also receiving Internet or any other
| outside domain's Multicast traffic.
| [/quote]
|
| Did anyone succeed in finding a solution for this? Unicast traffic is
| 'leaked' by importing and exporting RD's via RT's.
| Maybe such a solution can be created for multicast as well?
| Or maybe another workaround can be found by using an extra router which
| participates in both VPN's. In the case of the senders being located all
| over the different customer sites this would result in an extra router for
| each PE, which is not really an option.
|
|
| 2. inter-AS multicast
|
| Cisco's inter-AS multicast solution is based on RP syncing state information
| via MSDP. In most cases an AS is also a multicast domain. The question is:
| What determines the domain borders. Is that the absence of a PIM
| neighborship relation or the presence of 'ip multicast boundary'. In most
| examples I find both 'ip pim sparse-mode' AND 'ip multicast boundary'
| present on the interface facing the other AS.
| IMHO talking PIM with another AS should not be necessary. Within the AS and
| MD (Multicast Domain) PIM exchanges receiver information. Between AS-es MSDP
| takes care of this, then why run PIM on border interfaces as well??
|
|
|
| Any thoughts on both points?
|
| btw: Are there plans on creating a CCIE Service Provider list or are those
| questions still on-topic within the R&S list?
|
|
| thanks for your reply!
|
| Cheers,
|
| Koen
|
| _______________________________________________________________________
| Subscription information may be found at:
| http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
|
| _______________________________________________________________________
| Subscription information may be found at:
| http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:44 ART