Ahh, thanks for the insight. I didn't realize that was the case. My MPLS experience is restricted to Juniper at this point. Pete *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 5/26/2001 at 8:58 AM Michael Cohen wrote: >Yes, that's true. TLV's #22 and #135 are used to carry information needed >for MPLS TE however, in order to enable these TLV's on a cisco router, wide >metric support is required... > >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120 >t/120t7/te120_7t.htm#xtocid214168 > > >Cheers, > >-Michael Cohen > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Peter Van Oene >Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 1:02 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? >[7:6015] > > >A small correction. Traffic engineering databases are populated via new >TLV's in IS-IS (see Draft-ietf-isis-traffic-0x.txt). Wide metric support >is >not required. > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 5/25/2001 at 12:06 PM Michael Cohen wrote: > >>Quite right. RSVP-TE is only for path creation and setup. Actual >>bandwidth >>allocation information is disseminated to all TE devices using the IGP >>(OSPF >>Opaque LSA's and IS-IS wide metrics). This also leads to the current >>limitation of only running MPLS-TE within a single area of the link state >>IGP since the bandwidth information doesn't cross area boundaries. Each >>head end of TE tunnels should know what bandwidth is available through the >>entire tunnel path prior to RSVP signaling. >> >>Cheers, >> >>-Michael Cohen >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Irwin Lazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:25 AM >>To: 'Michael Cohen'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? >>[7:5765] >> >> >>Just to clarify, most other vendors are now heading down the RSVP-TE road >>for MPLS LDP provisioning (or at the very least, they are agreeing to >>support RSVP-TE). The RSVP-TE vs. CR-LDP argument seems to finally be >>dying >>down. >> >>It should be noted that RSVP-TE is only for path creation and setup, it >>doesn't perform the same role as was envisioned for IntServ. >> >>If anyone is interested in comparing the two protocols, Data Connection >has >>a good white paper on their site, which I link to from the MPLS Resource >>Center - www.mplsrc.com. >> >> >>Irwin >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:17 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? >>[7:5765] >> >> >>I think there might be some confusion as to where RSVP and CR-LDP are >being >>used. Steve is correct in saying that Cisco is using RSVP and most other >>vendors are using CR-LDP for Traffic Engineering. Cisco is also using the >>proprietary TDP to distribute tags in their MPLS solution while other >>vendors are conforming to the MPLS standard LDP. Cisco does support LDP >>for >>tag distribution in their 12.0.10ST and higher software and plans on >>deploying it in 12.2T for availability on most platforms. I haven't heard >>Cisco planning support for CR-LDP with Traffic Engineering in the near >>future... >> >>-Mike >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >>Stephen Skinner >>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 12:13 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? >>[7:5758] >> >> >>guys, >> >>thanks for your imput ..... >> >>yes i was loosely discribing MPLS ...it does have all the functions you >>state... and more , >> >>i must be mistaken about the RVSP because i seem to remeber reading >>somewhere that cisco is favoring RSVP....and that there LDP is based on >>this >> >>but hey i must be mistaken ......... >> >>also the RFC you list does not come up as valid ont the ITEF...please can >>you re-send this >> >>many thanks >> >>steve >>>From: "Marc-Andre Giroux" >>>Reply-To: "Marc-Andre Giroux" >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: RE: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? >[7:5723] >>>Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:56:43 -0400 >>> >>>Steve, >>> MPLS is alot more then just ATM PNNI at layer 3. Your statement is >>>semi true when talking about MPLS VPN's the concept does come from ATM >but >>>there is so much more you can do with it go read on traffic engineering, >>>the >>>fish bowl effect, valued added services (VPNs) and the network >protection. >>> >>> As for your other statement saying that cisco uses RSVP and everyone >>>else doesn't. This also is wrong. Cisco uses TDP wich is a label >>>distribution protocol that is proprietary but they also support the >>>standard >>>LDP (RFC 3630) that Juniper and Everyone else are supporting. Juniper >>>personnaly doesn't have as much support for LDP then RSVP-TE (rsvp has >>>existed for a couple of years its the TE extensions that are used in >>>Traffic >>>engineering). But when you start talking about this be sure to know what >>>you >>>are talking about. BTW you can't use LDP or TDP to do MPLS >>>traffic-Engineering ( and this is the killer app of MPLS). >>> >>> I hope this clarifies a few things, I also hope you don't take this >>>the wrong way but go read on the juniper site about RSVP-TE it will >>clarify >>>alot of things for you. Hope this was helpfull and if you have any >>>questions >>>don't be shy. >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >>>Stephen Skinner >>>Sent: May 24, 2001 3:37 AM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? >>>[7:5703] >>> >>> >>>hi, >>> >>>i to have been reading alot and working with MPLS..... >>> >>>i personally liken it to Switching more than routing >>>...i know it uses BGP and also uses static routes,but essentially it just >>>switches packets over pre-defined paths from device to device ....... >>> >>>I also see a future for this simply in the Telco enviroment ....everyone >>>(cisco Juni and foundry are supporting it ...albeit in different >>>forms..cisc >>> >>>is using RSVP and everyone else isn`t) and the speed increases seem to be >>>worth it.... >>> >>> >>>but as ever only my workload and time will tell. >>> >>>steve >>> >>> >>> >From: "nrf" >>> >Reply-To: "nrf" >>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >Subject: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? [7:5660] >>> >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:18:21 -0400 >>> > >>> >I would like to hear some opinions on MPLS. I have been reading about >>>it, >>> >and, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like just a reinvention >>>of >>> >ATM PNNI. >>> > >>> >I would be very interested in hearing some comments on the future of >>>MPLS. >>> >Particularly since ATM PNNI seemed to have gotten nowhere with the >>telcos >>> >(and I still don't completely understand why not), then why is MPLS >>going >>> >to >>> >do any better (or is it)? >>> > >>> >I would be particularly interested in hearing Howard Berkowitz's >opinion >>>on >>> >the future of MPLS. >>> > >>> >Thanx >>> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >>> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >>> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6027&t=6027 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
