If a PE router is a bud router, meaning it has local receivers and also forwards MPLS packets received over a point-to-multipoint LSP downstream to other P and PE routers, then there is a difference in how the vrf-table-label and VT statements work. When the vrf-table-label statement is included, the bud PE router receives two copies of the packet from the penultimate router: one to be forwarded to local receivers and the other to be forwarded to downstream P and PE routers. Having only vrf-table-label on the bud node causes traffic duplication which may not be desired in the network.
When the VT statement is included, the PE router receives a single copy of the packet, but if the VT interface goes down, then traffic will drop.
Trying to configure redundant VT interfaces with any option (ie., the VT serves both unicast and multicast traffic) creates the following commit error:
user@router# show routing-instances ri-IPTV instance-type vrf; interface vt-1/0/0.0 { any; primary; } interface vt-13/0/0.0 { any; } user@router# commit check member0-re0: [edit routing-instances ri-IPTV] 'interface vt-13/0/0.0' RT Instance: Interface vt-13/0/0.0 <-- Another unicast VT interface already configured under instance ri-IPTV error: configuration check-out failed
Two unicast VT interfaces cannot be configured in same instance.
If multicast VT is configured along with vrf-table-label, multicast VT will be used for multicast traffic and vrf-table-label for unicast. Hence, to provide redundancy for both multicast and unicast traffic without causing traffic duplication, the configuration below can be used. Both VT interfaces will be used only for multicast traffic in the instance. If vt-1/0/0 goes down, then vt-13/0/0/ will take over. Vrf-table-label will be used for unicast traffic.
set routing-instances ri-IPTV interface vt-1/0/0.0 multicast set routing-instances ri-IPTV interface vt-1/0/0.0 primary set routing-instances ri-IPTV interface vt-13/0/0.0 multicast set routing-instances ri-IPTV vrf-table-label