Yes, indeed! Things like VPLS, full-features ESI and PCEP exist on IOS-XR but not IOS and IOS-XE!
ISSU and HA operates differently between IOS-XE and NX-OS! Their claim is not even logical, the ASR1k is supporting 600 TE tunnels head-end, and up-to 10k midpoint! So, if I had an average of 30 ASR1k in the edge, each with 500 TE, there will be over 15000 TE tunnels in the core which will be creating a need for automatic tool such as NorthStar of Juniper! Mohamed Kamal Core Network Sr. Engineer On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > One of the downsides to having four (at least) different control plane > operating systems across your product lines. > > Phil > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Mohamed Kamal <mailto:mka...@noor.net> > Sent: 4/8/2015 5:13 AM > To: NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Cisco's IOS-XE and PCEP implementation > > Here is Cisco's reply! > > “Given PCEP’s main use-case is inter-area TE tunnels (or SDN controller in > TE environment) and ASR1K is not marketed for TE, support is unlikely” > > What is .. "not marketed for TE"?! > > All in all, I don't mind replacing them with some cheaper, powerful, > flexible and SDN-ready juniper MX that are marketed for TE. > > Mohamed Kamal > Core Network Sr. Engineer > > On 4/5/2015 10:42 PM, Mohamed Kamal wrote: > >> and hence being implemented on IOS-XR within the Cisco environment > today > > I disagree! .. Engineering is all about optimization, and using an ASR1k > > (which is being marketed as an "edge/PE router") in my edge doesn't mean > > that my network is not a "high-scale environment", it does mean that it > > fits my needs in this location, where other IOS-XR (ASR9k) fits in > others. > > > > Plus, PCEP is no magic, Juniper's MX series starting from the vMX is > > supporting PCEP. They didn't claim that, a "higher-scale environment" is > > being required for this. > > > >> the demand for online calculation has increased - either due to > dependencies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., SR), or > more complex constraints that cannot be well met by offline > calculation or CSPF > > That's why PCEP support should be added to the road-map in the near > future. > > > > Mohamed Kamal > > Core Network Sr. Engineer > > > > On 4/5/2015 8:33 PM, Rob Shakir wrote: > >> On 30 March 2015 at 15:42:59, Mohamed Kamal (mka...@noor.net) wrote: > >>> I'm wondering, why there is no MPLS-TE PCE support for IOS-XE till > now?! > >>> > >>> Should I be getting a 9k/CRS on the edge to implement an automatic > tool > >>> to build MPLS-TE tunnels! > >> In general, PCE(P) implementations have been limited. IMHO the last > 10 years of RSVP-TE management has generally been done with auto-mesh > tools, or in-house driven offline path calculation tools (e.g., WANDL, > Cariden, Aria…). > >> > >> As such, the demand for online calculation has increased - either > due to dependencies for new TE path-instantiating protocols (e.g., > SR), or more complex constraints that cannot be well met by offline > calculation or CSPF (e.g., path-diversity with disjoint head-end PEs). > This demand is mainly coming in higher-scale environments - and hence > being implemented on IOS-XR within the Cisco environment today. I > expect this is why IOS-XE is lagging. There are certainly requests for > support - but as Mark says, you’ll need to interface with your account > team to figure out when code will be available for your platform. > >> > >> As to whether you should buy an IOS XR device for your edge, I’m > not sure what kind of logic would mean that device selection is solely > based on PCEP support :-). I would certainly look more into the > existing “automatic” tools, and possibilities for offline calculation > in the interim period. > >> > >> r. > >> > > >
