Peter, The difference is Juniper's IS-IS has TLVs( metric wide-only) enabled by default. KY ""Peter Van Oene"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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/12 0 > >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] > 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=6074&t=6074 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
