multicast over MPLS-TE with FRR

[julio.pelado]

Hi all.

I would know if I have to configure PIM-SM over the primary and backup MPLS-TE tunnels when I use FRR, or I only could do it in the primary one.

We have a primary tunnel between two adjacent nodes and we want to transmit multicast traffic over the MPLS-TE tunnel, using FRR feature backing up link or node failure to provide faster recovery times than PIM convergence time.

Thanks.

[romccallum]

Sorry matie but Multicast doesnt and cannot use TE tunnels. The can co-exist but cannot use each other.

[Harold Ritter]

Multicast traffic over TE tunnel is not supported

They can co-exist though but you might need to use the following command so that RPF check doesn't fail.

router ospf 1 or router isis

mpls traffic-eng multicast-intact

Hope this help,

[julio.pelado]

Thanks.

What does "co-exist" mean?

So are there any solution to carry multicast traffic over a MPLS cloud with bandwidth reservation and any feature like FRR?

[adityakaul]

There certainly is some work going on in MPLS-WG for the same.

There is draft from Juniper guys for achieving the same to certain extent.

Rgds

Aditya

Establishing Point to Multipoint MPLS TE LSPs

http://www.simpleweb.org/ietf/internetdrafts/complete/draft-raggarwa-mpls-p2mp-te-02.txt

http://www.mpls2003.com/pm32.htm

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos64/swconfig64-mpls-apps/html/mpls-overview36.html#1067196

[Harold Ritter]

The co-existence means that you can run both TE tunnels and mcast on the same router without interfering with each other. The issue with this is usually that the RPF will fail for the mcast source resolvable via the TE tunnel. That is when you need to use the "mpls traffic-eng multicast-intact" command under your IGP.

Hope this helps,

[mheusinger]

At the moment forwarding multicast packets does not involve MPLS labels and label switching - even in an MPLS VPN environment. As all MPLS traffic engineering features rely on labels/label switching there is no way of using those with multicast traffic. in this sense labelswitching "co-exists" with multicast traffic: they share the resources (lines, memory, CPU ...) but do not interact.

As far as I kno one of the reasons is that CEF does not handle multicast traffic. CEF however is needed in Cisco platforms to handle label sitching.

Hope this helps

Martin

[julio.pelado]

Thanks to everybody