Is anyone currently talking about MPLS peering ? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
The spec on this really isn't done yet. draft-ietf-mpls-bgp4-mpls-04.txt has the current thinking on how to do this using BGP to carry the labels between ASes, but the implementations don't seem to be there yet. One of our guys, Diarmuid Flynn, added code to the route servers that would allow them to work with this, but so far we haven't been able to find router vendors who can provide us an image against which to test this. I think a BOF on how this would work operational would be valuable, so that we get interprovider agreement that BGP is/is not the best way to carry this stuff around. If you are proposing it for the Feb Nanog, there might even be early code to go through. regards, Ted Hardie Equinix
Is anyone currently talking about MPLS peering ? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
If you are talking about EBGP vpnv4 peerings called internally "Interprovider VPNs" cisco ships the code starting 12.1(5)T which does this already. Plain EBGP IPv4 + label code is still under works and may show up around 12.2(1/2)T. R.
hardie@equinix.com wrote:
The spec on this really isn't done yet.
draft-ietf-mpls-bgp4-mpls-04.txt has the current thinking on how to do this using BGP to carry the labels between ASes, but the implementations don't seem to be there yet. One of our guys, Diarmuid Flynn, added code to the route servers that would allow them to work with this, but so far we haven't been able to find router vendors who can provide us an image against which to test this.
I think a BOF on how this would work operational would be valuable, so that we get interprovider agreement that BGP is/is not the best way to carry this stuff around. If you are proposing it for the Feb Nanog, there might even be early code to go through.
regards, Ted Hardie Equinix
Is anyone currently talking about MPLS peering ? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
I was talking about the EBGP + label code. regards, Ted Hardie Equinix
If you are talking about EBGP vpnv4 peerings called internally "Interprovider VPNs" cisco ships the code starting 12.1(5)T which does this already. Plain EBGP IPv4 + label code is still under works and may show up around 12.2(1/2)T.
R.
hardie@equinix.com wrote:
The spec on this really isn't done yet.
draft-ietf-mpls-bgp4-mpls-04.txt has the current thinking on how to do this using BGP to carry the labels between ASes, but the implementations don't seem to be there yet. One of our guys, Diarmuid Flynn, added code to the route servers that would allow them to work with this, but so far we haven't been able to find router vendors who can provide us an image against which to test this.
I think a BOF on how this would work operational would be valuable, so that we get interprovider agreement that BGP is/is not the best way to carry this stuff around. If you are proposing it for the Feb Nanog, there might even be early code to go through.
regards, Ted Hardie Equinix
Is anyone currently talking about MPLS peering ? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
participants (3)
-
Bob Biver -
hardie＠equinix.com -
Robert Raszuk