All things related to multicast

[David Sinn <>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Juniper uses the same draft as Cisco does for their mVPN solution, so  
the concepts are the same that Dave presents here, just you need a  
tunnel PIC everywhere...  They are supposed to interoperate, but  
require you make some default changes on the Juniper side to make it  
work.  I never got it to, so our deployments are ships in the night...

David

On Feb 1, 2008, at 11:15 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> I assume you are asking how to make multicast work in this situation.
>
> You need a mVPN (multicastVPN) solution.  We have Cisco's solution
> working.  I believe Juniper has a solution.  I haven't heard of  
> anyone else
> having a mVPN solution, but then I haven't looked lately either.
>
> Pointer to Cisco's Design Guide for mVPN
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk828/tech_digest09186a00801a64a3.html
>
> This is done with a Multicast GRE Encapsulation rather than MPLS.   
> Also,
> you have restriction on interVRF redistribution for Unicast traffic  
> if you do
> this.
>
> The easiest way to think about it is; think of your blue and red  
> VRFs as
> completely separate networks made up of separate routers.  If you  
> want to
> connect the blue and red networks to each other and the Internet you  
> need
> to add a separate external router.   This router is a CE to both the  
> blue and
> red networks.  Further, this CE router needs to be the route to the  
> Internet
> for the red and blue networks, and the route between them.  Because,  
> with
> VRFs you don't have separate unicast and multicast tables you need  
> to use
> the Unicast table for your Multicast, at least for now, this may  
> change in the
> future.
>
> For our design we have a separate external CE-Border routers  
> interconnect
> to the VRFs using CE-EBGP, the MPLS Cloud is AS65217 and the Border
> routers are AS217 access to the Internet is through the global route  
> table of
> the Border Routers, an internal-border between VRFs is through a  
> separate
> internal-border VRF on the Border Routers.
>
> I suggest liberal application of your favorite alcoholic beverage,  
> keep
> repeating, until it all starts to makes sense. :)
>
> On 1 Feb 2008 debbie fligor wrote:
>
> > We're doing some planning for our next-generation campus core
> > network.  We're planning on using VRFs to provide some specialty
> > services (like a high-speed research network that bypasses the exit
> > firewalls).
> >
> > Here's a very simplified version of what we're thinking it will look
> > like:
>
>
>
> =================================================
> David Farmer                            Email:  
>
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota                 Phone:  612-626-
> 0815
> 2218 University Ave SE                  Cell:   612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029              FAX:    612-626-1818
> =================================================
>
> The following section of this message contains a file attachment
> prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
> If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
> you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
> If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
>
>   ---- File information -----------
>     File:  tc-vrfs.pdf
>     Date:  1 Feb 2008, 13:09
>     Size:  15936 bytes.
>     Type:  Acrobat
> <tc-vrfs.pdf>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkejjwoACgkQnTf1F9bA2eHONQCeIp9fO2nqavcorlO865CbpSOb
gccAn38oUXukmXvZBf4Tu+SukKsYWHyI
=x+5u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----