What is the current state/use of OSPF-TE? Something you don't hear about much, for sure. Is this something that wasn't designed well, supported well, or was it just superseded by label based switching by the vast Telco market? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks -- Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com
What is the current state/use of OSPF-TE?
Something you don't hear about much, for sure. Is this something that wasn't designed well, supported well, or was it just superseded by label based switching by the vast Telco market?
I assume you mean RFC 3630 "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"? This would be used by providers running MPLS, RSVP-TE and using OSPF as the IGP. As far as I can see it is supported by all major vendors. The reason you don't hear all that much about it is probably that a significant number of providers running MPLS and RSVP-TE use IS-IS as their IGP (we do). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On 29/Apr/15 09:03, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
I assume you mean RFC 3630 "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"? This would be used by providers running MPLS, RSVP-TE and using OSPF as the IGP.
As far as I can see it is supported by all major vendors. The reason you don't hear all that much about it is probably that a significant number of providers running MPLS and RSVP-TE use IS-IS as their IGP (we do).
Assuming the OP is referring to RFC 3630, I suppose you wouldn't hear much about IS-IS either in this regard, since the TE extensions to IS-IS and OSPF are not the final product. The final product would be MPLS-TE itself. IS-IS and OSPF are just a ubiquitous way to get the TE information across the backbone. Mark.
participants (3)
-
Josh Reynolds -
Mark Tinka -
sthaugļ¼ nethelp.no