The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Sep> msg00511



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

MPLS/BGP routing question

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:23:27 -0400
  • cc: "'Eric Osborne'" <eosborne@cisco.com>, "'Javier Antich'" <javier.antich@telindus.es>, Michel Redondo Ferrero <mredondo@idecnet.com>, mpls@UU.NET
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.10.0 WEMI/1.13.2 (Mochimune) FLIM/1.12.1(Nishinokyō) Emacs/20.6 (sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1)MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN)

Chris> My point is  this. BGP (specifically iBGP) is needed  in the core for
Chris> packets not utilizing a MPLS VPN or if MPLS fails. It may be the case
Chris> that there is a full mesh of MPLS LSPs (PE-PE) that serve all traffic
Chris> flows within  the network -  customers, external peers, etc.  What if
Chris> MPLS fails? Yes, VPN customers are  out of luck till the MPLS VPN can
Chris> be re-established.  However, external peer traffic,  etc should still
Chris> route as if the network did not implement MPLS.

I don't  agree.  I think that  even with respect to  public Internet routes,
there are a  number of advantages to NOT distributing all  the routes to all
the core  routers.  I think it  is a perfectly  valid use of MPLS  to tunnel
packets through the core so as to avoid the need for a full IBGP mesh.