nerdexam
Cisco

352-001 · Question #278

An MPLS service provider is offering a standard EoMPLS-based VPLS service to Customer A, providing Layer 2 connectivity between a central site and approximately 100 remote sites. Customer A wants to u

The correct answer is C. Replace VPLS with a Layer 3 MVPN solution to carry the streams between sites.. EoMPLS VPLS floods multicast like broadcast to all pseudowires, making it unscalable for high-bandwidth multicast across 100 sites; Layer 3 MVPN uses multicast distribution trees to deliver traffic only to interested receivers.

Network Virtualization

Question

An MPLS service provider is offering a standard EoMPLS-based VPLS service to Customer A, providing Layer 2 connectivity between a central site and approximately 100 remote sites. Customer A wants to use the VPLS network to carry its internal multicast video feeds, which are sourced at the central site and consist of 20 groups at 5 Mb/s each. Which service provider recommendation is the most scalable?

Options

  • AEoMPLS-based VPLS already carries multicast traffic in a scalable manner.
  • BReplicate the multicast traffic on the P routers.
  • CReplace VPLS with a Layer 3 MVPN solution to carry the streams between sites.
  • DUse GRE tunnels to carry the streams between sites.

How the community answered

(48 responses)
  • A
    6% (3)
  • B
    31% (15)
  • C
    52% (25)
  • D
    10% (5)

Why each option

EoMPLS VPLS floods multicast like broadcast to all pseudowires, making it unscalable for high-bandwidth multicast across 100 sites; Layer 3 MVPN uses multicast distribution trees to deliver traffic only to interested receivers.

AEoMPLS-based VPLS already carries multicast traffic in a scalable manner.

EoMPLS VPLS treats multicast as BUM traffic and floods it across all pseudowires to every site, consuming 100 Mb/s of replicated bandwidth per site and making the design extremely unscalable at 100 remote sites.

BReplicate the multicast traffic on the P routers.

Replicating multicast on P routers does not eliminate the flooding behavior of VPLS; traffic would still be sent to all sites regardless of group membership, providing no scalability benefit.

CReplace VPLS with a Layer 3 MVPN solution to carry the streams between sites.Correct

Layer 3 MVPN uses PIM-based Multicast Distribution Trees (MDTs) to route multicast traffic only to sites that have joined specific groups, rather than flooding to all 100 remote sites. This avoids the BUM (Broadcast, Unknown unicast, Multicast) flooding behavior inherent in VPLS, where 20 groups at 5 Mb/s each would be replicated across every pseudowire. MVPN is the industry-standard scalable design for carrying multicast traffic across MPLS VPN networks.

DUse GRE tunnels to carry the streams between sites.

GRE tunnels create point-to-point overlays that require the source to individually replicate each stream per tunnel, providing no multicast-awareness and no scalability improvement over standard VPLS flooding.

Concept tested: MVPN vs VPLS multicast scalability design

Source: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipmulti_mvpn/configuration/xe-16/imc-mvpn-xe-16-book.html

Topics

#VPLS multicast scalability#MVPN#Layer 2 VPN#service provider multicast

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full 352-001 Practice