I'm pretty ignorant on MPLS, but doesn't it work without OSPF? Or is a routing protocol necessary for it to function correctly?
On Saturday, August 8, 2015, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Head-ends and NOC all geographically diverse, so then each tower > potentially has three public /30s instead of one for however many > neighboring towers. Decisions... > > It should improve latency and possibly re-route times. *shrugs* > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Sterling Jacobson" <sterl...@avative.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sterl...@avative.net');>> > *To: *af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Sent: *Saturday, August 8, 2015 10:44:06 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > That’s what I’m struggling with too. > > > > Multiple potential head ends that are geographically diverse on the > network. > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett > *Sent:* Saturday, August 8, 2015 6:11 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > Agreed. Currently I'm all routed, but am looking to move to VPLS for those > beyond router-router L2 segments. I don't think I'll actually be saving any > address space as it isn't as simple as everything goes to the head-end > because there are multiple "head-ends". > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Shayne Lebrun" <sleb...@muskoka.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sleb...@muskoka.com');>> > *To: *af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Sent: *Friday, August 7, 2015 3:24:07 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > I advocate keeping everything routed, and using MPLS/VPLS to move L2 where > they need to go, when required. > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Glen > Waldrop > *Sent:* Friday, August 7, 2015 3:09 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > You guys have given me some light reading to do based on my question above. > > Sounds like the consensus is a few mid sized L2 rather than one large L2 > for backhauls? Or stick with a subnet per link as I have now? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Shayne Lebrun > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sleb...@muskoka.com');> > > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 07, 2015 1:52 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > That’s the basics. On a Mikrotik: > > Create a bridge with no ports. Call it ‘Loopback’. Assign a /32 to it, > and advertise via OSPF. > > Set your OSPF instance router ID to this IP. > > MPLS->MPLS, under LDP Settings, select Enabled, use the Loopback IP as the > LSR ID and Transport Address. Add the interface under LDP Interface and > MPLS Interface. > > > > Now, MTU is the big sticking point. On MPLS Interface, I use 1586, which > gives plenty of room for full 1500 byte packets plus VLANs, MPLS labels, > VPLS labels, and so on. But all equipment needs to support that MTU; > backhauls, routers, everything. So no 493 family Mikrotiks. No Canopy FSK > or 430 backhauls. Ubiquiti, depends. And so on. > > > > Once you have an MPLS network, you can create VPLS tunnels just like EoIP > tunnels, only there’ll be no fragmenting and way WAY less encapsulation > overhead. > > > > RSVP, I think is what Mikrotik calls ‘Traffic Engineering.’ Tell it how > much bandwidth you have on each interface, and you can avoid the situation > where you have router a->b->c->d and router a->d means the first path is > idle as long as the second path is up. > > > > I’ll reiterate, though, MTU will be the sticking point. > > > > Mikrotik’s wiki has some great write-ups on all this. > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Paul > Stewart > *Sent:* Friday, August 7, 2015 2:40 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > If you have even a couple of routers (ideally with switches off of each), > you can simulate some pretty cool stuff… then add a third router into the > mix and it’s even more fun. > > > > MPLS isn’t something you just learn right away – it’s something that takes > time to learn and run through in a lab setting ideally … there’s a lot of > complexities that you can use if you want to … or there are simpler > approaches…. > > > > Very very high level…. (not Microtik specific – I don’t know Microtik very > well) > > > > Enable loopback interfaces on all routers (which often is already setup) > > Enable OSPF between the routers (pretty typical) > > Enable RSVP on the interfaces facing one another (this will be new) > > Enable MPLS “protocol” on the interfaces facing one another (this will be > new) > > Configure iBGP between the routers (full mesh, peering with loopbacks – > not interface IP’s) > > Configure LSP’s between all routers (remember, LSP’s are unidirectional so > need all routers configured to all routers). > > > > This is assuming you want an RSVP based MPLS network and not LDP based – > RSVP has advantages over LDP but is more complex to setup. You may also > prefer using ISIS instead of OSPF in some networks. > > > > Once the LSP’s are established then you can look to create l2vpn, l3vpn, > vpls, or multicast-vpn instances (there are many things you can do here). > Easiest is an l2vpn where you transport a VLAN from one switchport to > another switchport via the routers “in the middle”. Once you have some > test traffic going, then you can investigate protection options such as > fast re-route, node link protection etc… this is where MPLS really starts > to “shine” when there is more than one path available to carry the traffic > … how you influence how the traffic flows and how fast traffic will > failover during an outage etc etc… > > > > This is incredibly high level overview and I may be missing something > depending on your network hardware and topology …. But again, the basics > from a high level. > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett > *Sent:* Friday, August 7, 2015 9:04 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > I haven't grasped how this would work, but I haven't tried it in a lab yet > either. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','p...@paulstewart.org');>> > *To: *af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Sent: *Friday, August 7, 2015 7:55:51 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > I’d suggest BGP at all locations when building an MPLS network – MPBGP to > be specific…. > > > > Sometimes folks who are just starting into MPLS presume that by having a > full BGP mesh everywhere means that you need to carry the full Internet > routing table … not the case and different routing table often (depending > on the hardware/os being used). > > > > Also, a lot of networks will put the Internet BGP tables into a separate > routing instance and leave just their IGP routes in the primary table – > provides for a nice level of separation between your routes > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of > *Sterling > Jacobson > *Sent:* Thursday, August 6, 2015 11:13 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > MPLS is where we are heading. > > > > In the planning phases right now for MPLS ring network. > > > > Seems like it works well if the network has multiple paths, but heads in > essentially one location. > > > > I think it may break a bit if it’s necessary to involve BGP at multiple > locations though. > > > > That’s what I’m debating right now. > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Hammett > *Sent:* Thursday, August 6, 2015 7:43 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > > > MPLS-enabling a network also reduces your latency on Mikrotik. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>> > *To: *af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Sent: *Thursday, August 6, 2015 7:52:23 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist > > If you already have a routed core network, especially if you have OSPF > rings (like we do), I figure it'd make more sense to put MPLS on top. I > haven't done it yet because we haven't needed to do anything like customer > tunnels for multi-site interconnects, but we're getting there. > > On 8/6/2015 4:32 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote: > > I'm running Mikrotik, all routed, got a different subnet for each tower, > got a different subnet between each tower, public IP's routed to the > customers, all the fun stuff. > > I'm thinking of restructuring my network so the entire backbone is one big > L2 network. If I plug into the switch at the tower at tower 5 it will be no > different than tower 1 or 7. Each AP would still have it's own subnet, but > the backside of each AP would be on the same L2 as the rest. > > I'm planning on looping it all the way around and building redundancy into > the network, haven't quite decided how I'm going to do that yet, might use > STP, that is a little ways down the road. I'll have another fiber feed in > case the main goes down and I'd like to have a level of redundancy should a > tower go out, I'll only lose the one rather than the ones behind it as well. > > I've fried my brain today, so if I'm sounding half crazy, just tell me to > take the rest of the day off... > > I'm thinking it might be best to have a few large L2 segments to the > backbone, maybe three or four, rather than one big L2 and much simpler than > 12+ subnets from tower to tower. > > Input is appreciated. > > > > > > > > > >
