Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements
Users might experience few discrepancies in Search results. We are working on this on our side. We apologize for the inconvenience it may have caused.
New Member

Mpls-te vs performance routing (PFR)

Hello All,

Can someone tell me if MPLS-TE can use ip sla stats like PFR and is anyone using PFR in a enterprise (single AS) and redistrubing BGP to an IGP.

current we are using regular OSPF with Mpls looking for with smarter load balancing capability.

1. All traffic is voip

2. core is 7200 vxr's

any suggestions / links are appreciated

thanks

john

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: Mpls-te vs performance routing (PFR)

Hello John,

MPLS Te has its own signaling plane based on RSVP-TE and TE extensions of link state protocols.

So it doesn't use or interact with IP SLA.

to be noted that if you are in an MPLS scenario you don't need to redistribute BGP into OSPF.

the mpls forwarding for recursion follows the LSP path to the BGP next-hop (loopback or remote PE).

so if you multiple paths to BGP next-hop CEF based per destination load balancing using exor of IP SA, IP DA, and hash should already happens.

if you redistribute the BGP networks in IGP LDP will create additional LSPs for these IP subnets but the load balancing should not improve.

if you have two paths to BGP next hop you will have two paths to VOIP subnet

but using per packet load balancing has negative effects on jitter (delay variation)

Hope to help

Giuseppe

2 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: Mpls-te vs performance routing (PFR)

Hello John,

MPLS Te has its own signaling plane based on RSVP-TE and TE extensions of link state protocols.

So it doesn't use or interact with IP SLA.

to be noted that if you are in an MPLS scenario you don't need to redistribute BGP into OSPF.

the mpls forwarding for recursion follows the LSP path to the BGP next-hop (loopback or remote PE).

so if you multiple paths to BGP next-hop CEF based per destination load balancing using exor of IP SA, IP DA, and hash should already happens.

if you redistribute the BGP networks in IGP LDP will create additional LSPs for these IP subnets but the load balancing should not improve.

if you have two paths to BGP next hop you will have two paths to VOIP subnet

but using per packet load balancing has negative effects on jitter (delay variation)

Hope to help

Giuseppe

Re: Mpls-te vs performance routing (PFR)

Could you pls be as precisely as possibly can?

what is ur exact question? what are you trying to acheive?

Regards,

Mohamed

429
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies
CreatePlease to create content