[AusNOG] VPLS OSPF question

Wed Apr 17 09:51:14 EST 2013

Im aware iBGP generally requires an IGP as well, to distribute loopback
information at a minimum, and that is is generally slower to propagate
updates than the likes of an IGP - thats all 101 stuff.

What I dont get is why this would make BGP any less useful internally. I
mean, if I had to peer 200 sites across a VPLS I'd probably do it with some
form of BGP rather than an IGP.

On 17 April 2013 00:05, Johann Lo <Johann.Lo at aptel.com.au> wrote:

> No, not really…. Why do you think most people run their iBGP on top of
> something else?****
>
> ** **
>
> Also BGP convergence time is inferior to OSPF/EIGRP/ISIS****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:
> ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Tom Storey
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 17 April 2013 4:40 AM
> *To:* Mitchell Warden
>
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] VPLS OSPF question****
>
> ** **
>
> Whats wrong with using BGP internally. Isnt that what iBGP is for?****
>
> ** **
>
> On 16 April 2013 10:34, Mitchell Warden <wardenm at wardenm.net> wrote:****
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> Some ideas below. There are a lot of considerations...
>
> OSPF
> - Will run fine on a VPLS service. I've done this with up to 30 or so
> sites in the past and it works well.
> - 200 is a lot of sites - I would try to break it down to multiple smaller
> domains.
> - 50 routers in an area isn't a big deal. It will depend on the CPU and
> the number of updates, but even 200 is unlikely to be a problem.
> - 200 neighbour adjacencies however might be a big deal (they're all on
> the same broadcast domain). I think 200 is too many.
>
> BGP
> - All of the routers could be in the same subnet so they would be able to
> reach each other directly without an IGP, if you build neighbors with
> interface addresses instead of loopbacks.
> - You would need to use route reflectors to avoid having to mesh all 200
> routers.
> - I can't think of any reason BGP would reduce available bandwidth.
> - BGP isn't really designed to be used internally, and I would try to
> avoid using it that way.
> - BGP is probably better than OSPF if you can't reduce the size of the
> domain. It will be more scalable and probably more reliable.
>
> Cheers.
> Mitchell****
>
>
> **
>
> *Johann Lo*
>
> *Senior IP Network Engineer*
>
>
>
>    <http://www.aptel.com.au/>
> *    Asian Pacific Telecommunications*     Level 14, 1 Queens Road, Melbourne, Victoria,
> 3004    *p:* 03 9863 9863 *f:* 03 9863 7701     *e:*
> Johann.Lo at aptel.com.au  *w:* www.aptel.com.au
>
>
> **   <http://www.aptel.com.au>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Notices* - (1)  If it appears that this email has been sent to you in
> error, please delete it (including any attachments) immediately and let the
> sender know by reply email.  This email may contain confidential
> information and may be privileged.  You may be acting unlawfully if you
> use, disclose, keep or rely upon that information.  (2)  This email and any
> attachment may not be free of viruses or defects.  The sender is not liable
> for anything whatsoever including damage, loss and liability that you
> experience because you have received this email and notes that you should
> ensure that your IT system is properly safeguarded.  (3)  If this email is
> not sent in direct connection with the company’s business, the company does
> not endorse the content.****
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad McGinn
> [mailto:the_xorach at yahoo.com]
> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> [mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net]
> Sent: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:14:02
> +1000
> Subject: [AusNOG] VPLS OSPF question
>
>
> > Hi AusNog list,
>
> Long time listener, first or second time caller.
>
> I
> > know this list is pretty specific to Service Providers so I'm hoping any
> of
> > you who not only know carrier networks, but also have an insight into
> > enterprise networks maybe able to help me to get a view (or even help
> > understanding) of the pros and cons of running OSPF or BGP across a VPLS
> > network.
>
> I respectfully ask your advice.
>
> I am an enterprise
> > network engineer, not a service provider however I hope you don't hold
> that
> > against me.  We run OSPF in our Data Centre and BGP into a MPLS network
> > that all of our sites connect into.
>
> My fairly basic understanding of VPLS
> > is kind of like EoMPLS or even one big broadcast domain.  I assume any
> > IGP could potentially work across it but some factors must be taken into
> > consideration:  eg flapping sites, latency, reference bandwidth, DR/BDR
> > placement, multicast transmission and so on.
>
> So, with that in mind, I'm
> > wondering the following:
> -    would it be wise to run an IGP across a
> > VPLS backbone with over 200 sites? or would BGP be better? or even
> something
> > else?
> -    if an IGP is the go, would one use OSPF?
> -    if OSPF, do
> > you think it would be wiser to run a separate OSPF process for the VPLS
> > connected sites and a separate OSPF process for the DC?  and then
> > redistribute or just summarise right there? (so as to protect the DC from
> > OSPF recalculations when sites go up and down)
> -    if BGP would be the
> > go I'm wondering how one might go about it..  I know that all iBGP
> > neighbours must have a route to the peering IP of all other iBGP
> routers so
> > I would assume an IGP must be run anyway???
> -    cisco say that
> > anything more than 50 routers on an area is a bad idea, so if I have over
> > 200 sites potentially on the VPLS, will OSPF cut it?
>
> I guess i'm just
> > trying to get my head around the different technology.  I'd love to keep
> > the stability that BGP brings, but also would like to be able to make use
> > of the bandwidth that VPLS gives.
>
> Any hints or tips will be gratefully
> > received and thank you for any help.  If you would like to keep from
> > cluttering up subscriber's inboxes, please reply offlist.
>
> Again, thanks
> > for any help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brad David****
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog****
>
> ** **
>
> ***************************************
>
> This email has been scanned by Asian Pacific Telecommunications Hosted Security.****
>
> Powered by TrendMicro.****
>
> For more information please visit www.aptel.com.au****
>
> ***************************************
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130417/e8192de3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: apcs-member-long2e40.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2969 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130417/e8192de3/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: apt-logo4944.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130417/e8192de3/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: aptel_feb_email-sig_external1366.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 81748 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130417/e8192de3/attachment-0001.jpg>