What are the trade-offs between using RSVP-TE and LDP for MPLS multicast QoS signaling?

1 RSVP-TE for MPLS multicast

RSVP-TE is an extension of RSVP, a protocol that enables end-to-end reservation of network resources for QoS purposes. RSVP-TE allows the sender of a multicast stream to establish a label switched path (LSP) for each receiver or group of receivers, using explicit route objects (EROs) to specify the path constraints and traffic parameters. RSVP-TE provides a high level of control and granularity over the multicast QoS, as well as fast recovery mechanisms in case of link or node failures. However, RSVP-TE also introduces a high signaling overhead, as it requires the sender to maintain state information for each LSP and to refresh the reservations periodically. Moreover, RSVP-TE is not compatible with some MPLS features, such as penultimate hop popping (PHP) and traffic engineering fast reroute (TE-FRR).

2 LDP for MPLS multicast

LDP is a protocol that enables the distribution of labels among MPLS routers based on the underlying routing information. LDP supports multicast traffic by using point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs, which are created by the ingress router based on the multicast routing table and propagated to the downstream routers using LDP messages. LDP offers a scalable and simple solution for MPLS multicast QoS, as it does not require any state information or reservation at the sender or the intermediate routers. Furthermore, LDP is compatible with most MPLS features, such as PHP and TE-FRR. However, LDP also has some limitations, such as the lack of explicit control over the multicast path and the dependency on the routing protocol for QoS provisioning. Additionally, LDP does not provide any fast recovery mechanisms for multicast traffic, which may affect the QoS performance in case of network failures.

3 Comparing RSVP-TE and LDP for MPLS multicast QoS

The choice between RSVP-TE and LDP for MPLS multicast QoS signaling depends on several factors, such as the network size, the traffic characteristics, the QoS requirements, and the operational complexity. Generally speaking, RSVP-TE is more suitable for scenarios where the multicast traffic is dynamic, heterogeneous, and sensitive to QoS variations, and where the network operator needs a fine-grained control over the multicast paths and resources. On the other hand, LDP is more suitable for scenarios where the multicast traffic is static, homogeneous, and tolerant to QoS variations, and where the network operator prefers a scalable and simple solution that leverages the existing routing protocol. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and some trade-offs are inevitable. Therefore, network operators should carefully evaluate their network conditions and objectives before deciding which approach to use for MPLS multicast QoS signaling.

4 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?