MPLS FRR versus IP FRR with LDP support for IS-IS

[aacole]

Question is which is best to implement now in a new SP network with IS-IS core and MPLS/LDP?

As this is a brand new green field build still in roll out we have no requirements yet for any MPLS TE, as no services are currently scheduled to be run over the new network.

So, as a best practice am I ok to deploy IP FRR for IS-IS with LDP support from day one? Will this give me any problems in future if I need to build MPLS TE tunnels? Am on latest (last time I checked) IOS XR code, 4.0.3

I recently watched a Cisco Webinar on IP FRR, and it seems to imply that IP FRR is totally suitable for an MPLS/LDP infrastructure, but then reading various other documents would seem to suggest as this is an MPLS/LDP application other FRR technologies may be more suitable, so I came to the community to get real world suggestions and recommendations.

Routers are mix of ASR9001 and 9006.

[aacole]

Finally got some lab time to test this.

the test set up is pretty basic, CE-PE  core of 4x ASR9006 PE's then CE's.

Maximum hops from CE to CE is 3, until PE-PE link is failed, then its 4 hops. All links are back to back, direct 10G fibre.

Without IP FRR/LDP convergence time is 125ms, for both L2 and L2 traffic tests.

When IP FRR is enabled this drops to 1ms one direction, 60ms in other path, not sure why there is this time difference, this was tested using CE routers with an L3VPN enabled on the PE's.

The same test with the test set directly connected into the  PE ports, across an L2 VPLS instance, the convergence time in  both directions dropped from 125ms to 1ms when IPFRR was enabled. This core was just the 4x ASR9006 PE's.

These basic test results show a significant improvment on over the non IP FRR ISIS/LDP enabled core routers when this feature is turned on.

[Muhammad Thanveer]

thanks

Regards
Thanveer
"Everybody is genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is a stupid."