From: Koen Zeilstra (koen@koenzeilstra.com)
Date: Wed Nov 08 2006 - 17:28:58 ART
Any thoughts on running multicast in the global table and
filtering on the edge's on customer allocated group addresses while
running unicast customer traffic in VPN's?
-----------------------
Living in LA is like not having a date on Saturday night.
-- Candice Bergen
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Scott Morris wrote:
| Correct. I have known some clients to do this. Ugly (why it's not very
| scalable), but functional.
|
| Scott
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Koen Zeilstra [mailto:koenz@mcvax.org] On Behalf Of Koen Zeilstra
| Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:11 PM
| To: Scott Morris
| Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
| Subject: RE: inter vpn multicast and inter AS/MD multicast
|
| 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
| |
|
| _______________________________________________________________________
| 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 - 08:05:45 ART