RE: mpls fragmentation [7:74577]
At 08:42 AM 9/2/2003 +1200, Thomas Salmen wrote: >hmm, cheers > >any idea if there is any documentation regarding this? seems to me that with >all these sites these days mucking around with df bits and filtering icmp >that it's a wonder that any link with an odd pmtu works at all. not to >mention qos getting all upset with fragmented packets. I don't believe there is any documentation per se. Essentially, if you operate a network and impose encap overhead to frames, you need to compensate for this overhead by increasing your supported mtu sizes. >thomas > > > > > > > At 10:37 PM 8/31/2003 +, Thomas Salmen wrote: > > >does anyone know if using frame-mode mpls affects the mtu on an > > interface? i > > >can't help thinking that sticking in an extra 32-bit header would mean > > >reducing the amount of user data that could be carried by 32 > > bits - causing > > >fragmentation if the data field is already at its max for a given > > >interface... > > > > MPLS headers, 802.1q tags and all similar encap overhead > > certainly add size > > to frames and are certainly things one needs to be mindful of from an mtu > > perspective. > > > > >apologies if the question is an inane one, but i'm just starting > > to get into > > >this ls thang > > > > > >thomas > > >**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > >http://shop.groupstudy.com > > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > http://shop.groupstudy.com > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74625&t=74577 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: mpls fragmentation [7:74577]
hmm, cheers any idea if there is any documentation regarding this? seems to me that with all these sites these days mucking around with df bits and filtering icmp that it's a wonder that any link with an odd pmtu works at all. not to mention qos getting all upset with fragmented packets. thomas > > > At 10:37 PM 8/31/2003 +, Thomas Salmen wrote: > >does anyone know if using frame-mode mpls affects the mtu on an > interface? i > >can't help thinking that sticking in an extra 32-bit header would mean > >reducing the amount of user data that could be carried by 32 > bits - causing > >fragmentation if the data field is already at its max for a given > >interface... > > MPLS headers, 802.1q tags and all similar encap overhead > certainly add size > to frames and are certainly things one needs to be mindful of from an mtu > perspective. > > >apologies if the question is an inane one, but i'm just starting > to get into > >this ls thang > > > >thomas > >**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > >http://shop.groupstudy.com > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74617&t=74577 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Re: mpls fragmentation [7:74577]
At 10:37 PM 8/31/2003 +, Thomas Salmen wrote: >does anyone know if using frame-mode mpls affects the mtu on an interface? i >can't help thinking that sticking in an extra 32-bit header would mean >reducing the amount of user data that could be carried by 32 bits - causing >fragmentation if the data field is already at its max for a given >interface... MPLS headers, 802.1q tags and all similar encap overhead certainly add size to frames and are certainly things one needs to be mindful of from an mtu perspective. >apologies if the question is an inane one, but i'm just starting to get into >this ls thang > >thomas >**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: >http://shop.groupstudy.com >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74607&t=74577 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759]
I would try the cisco web site first. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk436/tk428/tech_configuration_e xamples_list.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk436/tk428/tech_tech_notes_list html Well, I guess just go to the website (cisco, juniper redback...etc) and do a search on mpls, and you would have plenty to go by. -luan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eyabane Patasse Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759] I am looking for sample MPLS scenarios that i can reproduce on my home lab to create an MPLS network, just for the knowledge of the technology. if anyone has some good links, or sample configs, please be kind to share. Regards & Thanks _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72802&t=72759 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759]
Cisco site has a decent set of configuration samples (as usual). MPLS and VPN architectures (cisco press) is a great starting point and you can go from there. hth, Mark. -Original Message- From: Eyabane Patasse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759] I am looking for sample MPLS scenarios that i can reproduce on my home lab to create an MPLS network, just for the knowledge of the technology. if anyone has some good links, or sample configs, please be kind to share. Regards & Thanks _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72803&t=72759 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759]
I like the starting point in Stephen Hutnik and Michael Satterlee book (All in One CCIE. MPLS and VPN worked great in our lab, with 2500 routers. Unfortunately, it is impossible to reproduce MPLS Traffic Engineering on 2500. The router crashes. Hope Helps. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72789&t=72759 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759]
I would try the cisco web site first. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk436/tk428/tech_configuration_e xamples_list.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk436/tk428/tech_tech_notes_list .html Well, I guess just go to the website (cisco, juniper redback...etc) and do a search on mpls, and you would have plenty to go by. -luan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eyabane Patasse Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759] I am looking for sample MPLS scenarios that i can reproduce on my home lab to create an MPLS network, just for the knowledge of the technology. if anyone has some good links, or sample configs, please be kind to share. Regards & Thanks _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72763&t=72759 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759]
Cisco site has a decent set of configuration samples (as usual). MPLS and VPN architectures (cisco press) is a great starting point and you can go from there. hth, Mark. -Original Message- From: Eyabane Patasse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS simulated lab at home [7:72759] I am looking for sample MPLS scenarios that i can reproduce on my home lab to create an MPLS network, just for the knowledge of the technology. if anyone has some good links, or sample configs, please be kind to share. Regards & Thanks _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72761&t=72759 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS VLANs... [7:72376]
I'm sorry, but I don't have experience on that particular platform with EoMPLS. My network is almost completely GSRs and 7500s. All our PEs are 7500s. We aren't letting customers use these circuits yet but every indication is that the processor impact won't be much worse than a normal IP customer. The greatest memory impact is just running MPLS. Again though, I can't speak for the 6500. By the way, Sam Halabi has a new book coming out in September (I think) that talks about EoMPLS theory pretty well called "Metro Internet." It looks like it will be pretty good. As far as I know it's the first Cisco Press book to talk about Martini L2 stuff. -Original Message- From: alaerte Vidali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MPLS VLANs... [7:72376] Hi Mike, We are going to implement EoMPLS over two 6509 connected through 155 Mbps PoS link. Do you have experience concerning CPU/memory utilization? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72422&t=72376 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS VLANs... [7:72376]
Hi Mike, We are going to implement EoMPLS over two 6509 connected through 155 Mbps PoS link. Do you have experience concerning CPU/memory utilization? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72404&t=72376 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS VLANs... [7:72376]
Karen, We are currently working on rolling out Martini L2 Ethernets over MPLS. There are two Cisco ways to do Ethernet over MPLS. The first and most commonly used method uses VC 0x0004 as defined in draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls. It is used to transport individual .1q vlans, which if I read your message correctly is what you want to do. It's configured like this: PE router Int gig 1/1.100 Encap dot1Q vlan-id Mpls l2transport dest-ip vc-id The second and newer EoMPLS technique is support of VC 0x0005. It has just recently been introduced in (the quite buggy on 7500s) release of 12.0.24S. This technique supports port to port Ethernet trunking allowing many vlans to flow over the same physical port and letting you trunk Ethernet switches through the network. It sounds like what you want is the first technique. One word of caution though. Every Ethernet device the communicates with the PE router will be in said routers ARP table. Be careful. That being said this is some awesome technology. I'm definitely a big fan. Good Luck and let me know how your MPLS implementation goes. Mike Mike Bernico Sr. Network Engineer Illinois Century Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Karen E Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS VLANs... [7:72376] Does anyone know if there's a way out there to implement Layer 2 VPNs on a per-VLAN basis rather than a physical port assignment? A-La draft-kawakami-mpls-lsp-vlan-00.txt. Ideas welcome, Karen Y A rose by any other name is Cisco specific terminology... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72393&t=72376 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS VLANs... [7:72376]
Hi Karen, Would EoMPLS meet your requirement? Best Regards, Alaerte Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72384&t=72376 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS for CCIE [7:71132]
check the blue print on CCO. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71218&t=71132 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS for CCIE [7:71132]
For the Communication Services Written Exam , general knowledge for MPLS, MPLS/VPN should be oki I think. Cisco's MPLS and MPLS/VPN Tech Support page should be enough for the written part for the MPLS and MPLS VPN questions. http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/Support/browse/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:M PLS&s=Implementation_and_Configuration My regards De - Original Message - From: "Swapnil Shah" To: Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 1:20 PM Subject: MPLS for CCIE [7:71132] > Hi > > Can you suggest me some URL / Books on MPLS for Preparing for CCIE Written > Exam. > > Do you need to know MPLS as a technology or required to configure MPLS based > Network / VPN... as I dont have access to equipments supporting MPLSso no > hand-on would be possible for me at this moment.. > > Thanks > Swapnil Shah Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71138&t=71132 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221]
Thanks, I sucessfully created MPLS VPN on this platform/image, but maybe it is necessary 2600 family router to test MPLS TE. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70542&t=70221 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221]
this is an experimental image. > IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-JS-L), Experimental Version so this trace can not be decoded like this.. the DE of the image should be contacted.. > %Software-forced reload regards devvv - Original Message - From: "alaerte Vidali" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:55 PM Subject: Re: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221] > I tried another version, but occurs the same error message: > > R2#sh ver > Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software > IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-JS-L), Experimental Version > 12.0(20011017:155337) [rraszuk > -New_reorg_oct17 110] > > 2#sh flash > > System flash directory: > File Length Name/status > 1 12940544 c2500-js-l.20oct2001 > > > > 00:51:15: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 00:51:16: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 3.3.3.3 on Serial0.23 from EXSTART > to DOWN, Nei > ghbor Down: Dead timer expired > 00:51:16: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console > 01:07:04: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 01:22:53: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 01:38:39: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 01:54:23: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 02:10:07: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 02:25:49: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 02:41:31: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 02:57:11: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 03:12:51: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 03:28:31: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 03:44:11: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > 03:59:51: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = > MPLS TE LM. > -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 > Queued messages: > > %Software-forced reload Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70478&t=70221 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221]
I tried another version, but occurs the same error message: R2#sh ver Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-JS-L), Experimental Version 12.0(20011017:155337) [rraszuk -New_reorg_oct17 110] 2#sh flash System flash directory: File Length Name/status 1 12940544 c2500-js-l.20oct2001 00:51:15: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 00:51:16: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 3.3.3.3 on Serial0.23 from EXSTART to DOWN, Nei ghbor Down: Dead timer expired 00:51:16: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console 01:07:04: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 01:22:53: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 01:38:39: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 01:54:23: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 02:10:07: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 02:25:49: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 02:41:31: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 02:57:11: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 03:12:51: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 03:28:31: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 03:44:11: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 03:59:51: %SYS-2-WATCHDOG: Process aborted on watchdog timeout, process = MPLS TE LM. -Traceback= 3206E92 3209C6C 320449C 3204672 1005AF8 100453E 1000196 Queued messages: %Software-forced reload Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70457&t=70221 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221]
The version is: R3#sh vers Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-P-L), Experimental Version 12.0(20011017:155337) [rraszuk- New_reorg_oct17 109] R3#sh flash System flash directory: File Length Name/status 1 8303380 /c2500-p-l.20oct2001 The memory is: 16384K flash 16M DRAM Thanks in Advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70259&t=70221 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221]
it is strange i used this command many times and my routers never crashed :) is this only happening on the 2500 platform? and could you tell your "sh ver" regards De - Original Message - From: "alaerte Vidali" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:13 PM Subject: MPLS TE crash the router 2500 [7:70221] > After entering 'tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic' the router > crash. > > > The configuration is: > > ip cef > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > ! > interface loopback 0 > ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 > ! > interface se 0.23 > ip address 192.168.23.1 255.255.255.255 > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > ip rsvp bandwidth 1000 > ! > router ospf 0 > network 192.168.23.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 > mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 > mpls traffic-eng area 0 > ! > interface tunnel1 > ip unnumbered loopback 0 > tunnel destination 3.3.3.3 > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 1 1 > > ! > end > > When the command 'tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic' is entered, > the following messages appear and it is necessary reload the router > (physically). > > 8w5d: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel1, changed state > to down > 8w5d: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Loopback0, changed state to > administratively down > 8w5d: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Loopback0, changed > state to down > 8w5d: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Loopback0, changed state to up > 8w5d: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Loopback0, changed > state to up > 8w5d: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 3.3.3.3 on Serial0.23 from EXCHANGE to > DOWN, Neighb > or Down: Interface down or detached > hbor Down: Interface down or detached > 8w5d: %OSPF-4-NONEIGHBOR: Received database description from unknown > neighbor 3.3.3.3 > 8w5d: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 3.3.3.3 on Serial0.23 from LOADING to > FULL, Loading > Done > 8w5d: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Tunnel1, changed state to up > Queued messages:Local Timeout (control reg=0x118) Error, address: 0x20201FE > at 0x34CEA50 > (PC) > > I also tried explicity path; the result is the same. And IS-IS too. > > Any Thoughts? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70257&t=70221 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Label - unique per interface / DLCI - unique per [7:65093]
Your router is connected to a port on a frame-relay switch on the provider's end. That port can handle multiple PVCs. a DLCI is just the FR switch's way of determining which of those PVC's a frame belongs to and thus how it should be routed. So from a certain viewpoint, both statements are true. On your router's end, the DLCI is local to the router. On the provider's end, the DLCI is local to that particular port on the FR switch. Does that help? Karen *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 3/11/2003 at 6:18 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >From RFC3031: > >"When these conditions hold, an LSR may use labels that have "per > interface" scope, i.e., which are only unique per interface." > >The text explains when the same label can be used on different interfaces. > >In Frame Relay world, I read two differents statements about DLCI: > > DLCI is local from the router > > and > > DLCI is local from an interface > >Any Thoughts? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65093&t=65093 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Label - unique per interface / DLCI - uni [7:65093]
Yes, Thanks. I did a lab and the router did allow configure the same DLCI on two different interfaces. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65097&t=65093 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ??? MPLS ??? [7:64898]
At 02:16 PM 3/10/2003 +, Steven Aiello wrote: >Sorry for such a newbe question. But what is MPLS? And what is it? >Any one have a link they can point me too? Just trying to learn more. I would recommend you start at www.mplsrc.com and possibly surf to the standards page. Within that page, check out http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3031.txt?number=3031 at least for an overview of the architecture of the protocol itself. Cisco will have a great deal of information as well, and certainly played a big role in the development of the specifications, but also tend to use a lot of proprietary terminology that might just confuse you moving forward. Matt Kolon at Juniper said once that MPLS is essentially "low overhead, virtual circuits for IP." I personally think this statement aptly describes the protocol. At present, MPLS plays an enabling role in many technical solution sets, mostly in the VPN environment. Hence, a lot of folks, particularly when first learning the protocol, become distracted by the many features that "MPLS enabled" solutions might present, but lose site of what role MPLS itself plays. The C/S mailing list at Groupstudy might prove an interesting forum for Q&A as I believe MPLS is more relevant to that track, however this list certainly includes a bunch of folks who have a wealth of knowledge on the topic. Pete >Thanks, >Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65048&t=64898 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ??? MPLS ??? [7:64898]
look up back issues of cisco's "IP journal" there's a good article on MPLS.. ""Steven Aiello"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sorry for such a newbe question. But what is MPLS? And what is it? > Any one have a link they can point me too? Just trying to learn more. > > Thanks, > Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65010&t=64898 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ??? MPLS ??? [7:64898]
Converge Network Digest has a few tutorials on MPLS on their web site. Not alot of detail but really good overviews for someone new to the technology. http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/archive/010910TUTORIAL-rgallaher1.htm Hope this helps, Karen *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 3/10/2003 at 2:16 PM Steven Aiello wrote: >Sorry for such a newbe question. But what is MPLS? And what is it? >Any one have a link they can point me too? Just trying to learn more. > >Thanks, >Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64986&t=64898 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ??? MPLS ??? [7:64898]
I found this link to Cisco for MPLS. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120 limit/120s/120s5/mpls_te.htm Bon apetit! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64901&t=64898 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ??? MPLS ??? [7:64898]
Multiprotocol Label Switching. Can read up on it at Cisco or I believe, whatis.com has a little on it, as well. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64899&t=64898 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls, QoS, etc... [7:64810]
Also this one. http://www.netcraftsmen.net/welcher/ ""Router Kid"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fqos > _c/qcfbook.pdf > > Let me know if you like it :) > > > > ""Xy Hien Le"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi All, > > > > Can anyone show me a few links to some good QoS, MPLS practice labs? > > Thanks in advance. > > Xy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64845&t=64810 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls, QoS, etc... [7:64810]
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fqos _c/qcfbook.pdf Let me know if you like it :) ""Xy Hien Le"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi All, > > Can anyone show me a few links to some good QoS, MPLS practice labs? > Thanks in advance. > Xy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64844&t=64810 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS and CEF [7:62993]
MPLS uses the CEF table adjacencies in establishing a Label Switched Path. Additionally, each VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) uses a derived CEF table, in addition to its own forwarding table. There's a pretty good list 'mpls-ops' hosted at mplsrc.com if you want to get more involved in MPLS. Jim Guichard is an active participant on the list so you can drill down about as deep as you want and get pretty good answers. HTH, John - Original Message - From: "Anne Beatriz" To: Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:33 AM Subject: Re: MPLS and CEF [7:62993] > Hello, > > I think MPLS require CEF because some mechanisms like: Packets are switched > in the interrupt code using the CEF cache (FIB table). It supports > per-packet load balancing (previously only supported by process switching), > per-source/destination load balancing (only supported by CEF switching), > fast destination look-up and many other features not supported by other > switching mechanisms. The FIB table is essentially a replacement for the > standard routing table. > > > > > > Regards!! > > > > Anne > > Router Kid wrote:anyone knows why MPLS require CEF to be enable on the > cisco routers ? > > Regards! > > Router Kid~! > ** > Anne Beatriz > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ** > > > > - > Busca Yahoo! > O servigo de busca mais completo da Internet. O que vocj pensar o Yahoo! > encontra. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63022&t=62993 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS and CEF [7:62993]
Hello, I think MPLS require CEF because some mechanisms like: Packets are switched in the interrupt code using the CEF cache (FIB table). It supports per-packet load balancing (previously only supported by process switching), per-source/destination load balancing (only supported by CEF switching), fast destination look-up and many other features not supported by other switching mechanisms. The FIB table is essentially a replacement for the standard routing table. Regards!! Anne Router Kid wrote:anyone knows why MPLS require CEF to be enable on the cisco routers ? Regards! Router Kid~! ** Anne Beatriz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** - Busca Yahoo! O servigo de busca mais completo da Internet. O que vocj pensar o Yahoo! encontra. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63020&t=62993 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS and CEF [7:62993]
mpls use sef table to forword lable if you need more information you can e-mail me in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62997&t=62993 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS and CEF [7:62993]
Off the top of me noodle I think It has to do the FIB built by CEF and the FIB probably contains the tag info MPLS uses. I'm sure someone else can elaborate much more eloquently than I though ;) Dave Router Kid wrote: > anyone knows why MPLS require CEF to be enable on the cisco routers ? > > Regards! > > Router Kid~! -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62996&t=62993 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Traffic Engineering - 2500 router reset [7:61947]
with regards to the rsvp command, if there are any mpls routers between 'r2' & 'r3' the interfaces that take part in the tunnel should be config'd for rsvp - also, make sure you don't 'over book' the interface another thing that appears to be missing from you config is the tunnel's path - the way I understand it is; you've got to set up an explicit path & you can either specify another explicit path to be used if the 1st one is unavailable or you can specify that the dynamic path be used if the 1st explicit path is unavailable (you can set up multiple 'alternate paths') I hope that helps wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have the ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 on the related interfaces. Is that > what you mean? > > > > > > > "Charles" @groupstudy.com em 27/01/2003 21:05:18 > > Favor responder a "Charles" > > Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > > Assunto:Re: MPLS Traffic Engineering - 2500 router reset [7:61947] > > > one of the things you have to do is use enable rsvp on all interfaces that > will take part in the tunnel ... rsvp is used to 'reserve bandwidth for the > tunnel' - the tunnel won't come up unless you do this > > I think the command is either 'rsvp bandwidth' or 'rsvp-bandwidth' > > > wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > After the command "tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic", the > > router reloads. > > > > The same happen with explicit path. > > > > The following message appear after reload: RSVP: must configure RSVP > > Bandwidth first. > > > > Any idea? > > > > > > > >R3 > > > >ip cef > >mpls traffic-eng tunnels > >! > >interface Loopback0 > > ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.255 > > ip router isis > >! > >interface Serial0 > > no ip address > > encapsulation frame-relay > > fair-queue 64 64 64 > > ip rsvp signalling dscp 0 > >! > >interface Serial0.32 point-to-point > > bandwidth 1000 > > ip address 192.168.23.2 255.255.255.0 > > ip router isis > > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > > frame-relay interface-dlci 132 > > ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 > >! > >interface Tunnel0 > > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > > tunnel destination 2.2.2.2 > > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 > >! > >router isis > > net 47....0003.00 > > is-type level-1 > > metric-style wide > > mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 > > mpls traffic-eng level-1 > >! > >end > > > > > > R2 > > > > ip cef > > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > > ! > > interface Loopback0 > >ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 > >ip router isis > > ! > > interface Serial0 > >no ip address > >encapsulation frame-relay > >fair-queue 64 64 64 > >ip rsvp signalling dscp 0 > > ! > > interface Serial0.23 point-to-point > >bandwidth 1000 > >ip address 192.168.23.1 255.255.255.0 > >ip router isis > >mpls traffic-eng tunnels > >frame-relay interface-dlci 123 > >ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 > > ! > > interface Tunnel0 > >ip unnumbered Loopback0 > >tunnel destination 3.3.3.3 > >tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng > >tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce > >tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 > >tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 > > ! > > router isis > >net 47....0002.00 > >is-type level-1 > >metric-style wide > >mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 > >mpls traffic-eng level-1 > > ! > > end > > > > > > > > > > R3(config-if)#tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic > > R3(config-if)# > > Buffered messages: > > > > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Ethernet0, changed state to up > > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Ether
Re: MPLS Traffic Engineering - 2500 router reset [7:61947]
I have the ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 on the related interfaces. Is that what you mean? "Charles" @groupstudy.com em 27/01/2003 21:05:18 Favor responder a "Charles" Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Assunto:Re: MPLS Traffic Engineering - 2500 router reset [7:61947] one of the things you have to do is use enable rsvp on all interfaces that will take part in the tunnel ... rsvp is used to 'reserve bandwidth for the tunnel' - the tunnel won't come up unless you do this I think the command is either 'rsvp bandwidth' or 'rsvp-bandwidth' wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After the command "tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic", the > router reloads. > > The same happen with explicit path. > > The following message appear after reload: RSVP: must configure RSVP > Bandwidth first. > > Any idea? > > > >R3 > >ip cef >mpls traffic-eng tunnels >! >interface Loopback0 > ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.255 > ip router isis >! >interface Serial0 > no ip address > encapsulation frame-relay > fair-queue 64 64 64 > ip rsvp signalling dscp 0 >! >interface Serial0.32 point-to-point > bandwidth 1000 > ip address 192.168.23.2 255.255.255.0 > ip router isis > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > frame-relay interface-dlci 132 > ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 >! >interface Tunnel0 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > tunnel destination 2.2.2.2 > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 >! >router isis > net 47....0003.00 > is-type level-1 > metric-style wide > mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 > mpls traffic-eng level-1 >! >end > > > R2 > > ip cef > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > ! > interface Loopback0 >ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 >ip router isis > ! > interface Serial0 >no ip address >encapsulation frame-relay >fair-queue 64 64 64 >ip rsvp signalling dscp 0 > ! > interface Serial0.23 point-to-point >bandwidth 1000 >ip address 192.168.23.1 255.255.255.0 >ip router isis >mpls traffic-eng tunnels >frame-relay interface-dlci 123 >ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 > ! > interface Tunnel0 >ip unnumbered Loopback0 >tunnel destination 3.3.3.3 >tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng >tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce >tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 >tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 > ! > router isis >net 47....0002.00 >is-type level-1 >metric-style wide >mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 >mpls traffic-eng level-1 > ! > end > > > > > R3(config-if)#tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic > R3(config-if)# > Buffered messages: > > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Ethernet0, changed state to up > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Ethernet1, changed state to up > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial0, changed state to up > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial1, changed state to down > 00:00:07: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Serial0, > changed sta > te to up > 00:00:15: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Ethernet0, > changed s > tate to up > 00:00:15: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Ethernet1, > changed s > tate to down > 00:00:19: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel0, > changed sta > te to down > 00:00:21: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Ethernet0, changed state to > administrativ > ely down > 00:00:22: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Ethernet1, changed state to > administrativ > ely down > 00:00:22: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Serial0, > changed sta > te to up > 00:00:22: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Ethernet0, > changed s > tate to down > 00:00:25: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Serial1, changed state to > administrativel > y down > 00:00:26: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Serial1, > changed sta >
Re: MPLS Traffic Engineering - 2500 router reset [7:61947]
one of the things you have to do is use enable rsvp on all interfaces that will take part in the tunnel ... rsvp is used to 'reserve bandwidth for the tunnel' - the tunnel won't come up unless you do this I think the command is either 'rsvp bandwidth' or 'rsvp-bandwidth' wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After the command "tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic", the > router reloads. > > The same happen with explicit path. > > The following message appear after reload: RSVP: must configure RSVP > Bandwidth first. > > Any idea? > > > >R3 > >ip cef >mpls traffic-eng tunnels >! >interface Loopback0 > ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.255 > ip router isis >! >interface Serial0 > no ip address > encapsulation frame-relay > fair-queue 64 64 64 > ip rsvp signalling dscp 0 >! >interface Serial0.32 point-to-point > bandwidth 1000 > ip address 192.168.23.2 255.255.255.0 > ip router isis > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > frame-relay interface-dlci 132 > ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 >! >interface Tunnel0 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > tunnel destination 2.2.2.2 > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 >! >router isis > net 47....0003.00 > is-type level-1 > metric-style wide > mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 > mpls traffic-eng level-1 >! >end > > > R2 > > ip cef > mpls traffic-eng tunnels > ! > interface Loopback0 >ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 >ip router isis > ! > interface Serial0 >no ip address >encapsulation frame-relay >fair-queue 64 64 64 >ip rsvp signalling dscp 0 > ! > interface Serial0.23 point-to-point >bandwidth 1000 >ip address 192.168.23.1 255.255.255.0 >ip router isis >mpls traffic-eng tunnels >frame-relay interface-dlci 123 >ip rsvp bandwidth 500 500 > ! > interface Tunnel0 >ip unnumbered Loopback0 >tunnel destination 3.3.3.3 >tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng >tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce >tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 >tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 100 > ! > router isis >net 47....0002.00 >is-type level-1 >metric-style wide >mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 >mpls traffic-eng level-1 > ! > end > > > > > R3(config-if)#tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic > R3(config-if)# > Buffered messages: > > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Ethernet0, changed state to up > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Ethernet1, changed state to up > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial0, changed state to up > 00:00:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial1, changed state to down > 00:00:07: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Serial0, > changed sta > te to up > 00:00:15: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Ethernet0, > changed s > tate to up > 00:00:15: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Ethernet1, > changed s > tate to down > 00:00:19: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel0, > changed sta > te to down > 00:00:21: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Ethernet0, changed state to > administrativ > ely down > 00:00:22: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Ethernet1, changed state to > administrativ > ely down > 00:00:22: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Serial0, > changed sta > te to up > 00:00:22: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Ethernet0, > changed s > tate to down > 00:00:25: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Serial1, changed state to > administrativel > y down > 00:00:26: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Serial1, > changed sta > te to down > 00:00:27: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from memory by console > 00:01:12: %SYS-5-RESTART: System restarted -- > Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software > IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-P-L), Experimental Version > 12.0(20011017:155337) >[rraszuk-New_reorg_oct17 109] > Copyright (c) 1986-2001 by cisco Systems, Inc. > Compiled Sat 20-Oct-01 04:12 by rraszuk > 00:03:41: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console > Queued messages: > System Bootstrap, Version 11.0(10c)XB2, PLATFORM SPECIFIC RELEASE > SOFTWARE (fc > 1) > Copyright (c) 1986-1998 by cisco Systems > 2500 processor with 14336 Kbytes of main memory > > %SYS-4-CONFIG_NEWER: Configurations from vers
RE: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
This is the link and instruction on how to get MPLS IOS code for a Cisco 2500 series. This IOS code is not to be used in a production network because it was only developed for Cisco TAC employees to run MPLS on 2500 in their labs. ftp.datazip.com Username: first Password: anyfile Click on the upload directory Click on the MPLS Software Download the file called MPLS2500IOS.zip Once you have downloaded the file, you can go here for instructions and a screen capture on loading it: http://home.attbi.com/~blaga/mpls.pdf Thanks, Mario Puras SoluNet Technical Support Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Direct: (321) 309-1410 888.449.5766 (USA) / 888.SOLUNET (Canada) -Original Message- From: Paul Jin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 4:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284] Chuck, It definitely is an unsupported image. It is an image that Cisco created internally for some testing only. Most of people at Cisco don't even know the image exists.. I know, I even opened a TAC ticket to locate this image and they told me that it did not exist even though I specifically mentioned I heard it was a testing version only. And the author of the image was nice enough to post the ftp site address a little while back when everyone started asking for it. - Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60521&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
Chuck, It definitely is an unsupported image. It is an image that Cisco created internally for some testing only. Most of people at Cisco don't even know the image exists.. I know, I even opened a TAC ticket to locate this image and they told me that it did not exist even though I specifically mentioned I heard it was a testing version only. And the author of the image was nice enough to post the ftp site address a little while back when everyone started asking for it. - Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60360&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
Unfortunately doesn't look like it. But it is great to be able to run it on the 25xx series even if it is only 12.0 code :-) You will need full memory though Chuck 18/16 (2mg shared not counted with 16mg dram) to run c2500-js-l.20oct2001. Haven't tried the other 2 smaller image sized releases to be honest. cheers, M -Original Message- From: The Long and Winding Road [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 10:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284] hey, Mark, thanks for the tip. I read Dennis' pdf, and checked out both the web sites mentioned. looks like this software has not been updated in quite a while. obviously it is unsupported. Chuck TANSTAAFL "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" ""Vicuna, Mark"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I know you can grab the mpls images for the 25xx series here: > > ftp-eng.cisco.com (anonymous) > > /rraszuk/specials > > c2500-js-l.20oct2001 > c2500-p-l.20oct2001 > c2500-p-l.tag > > Dennis L of course has his site http://home.attbi.com/~blaga/ > > Can't help you out specific for 72xx sorry.. > > > > cheers, > Mark. > > -Original Message- > From: neal r [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284] > > > Thanks to the fellows at http://www.optimumdata.com I'm going to have > a lab with a mix of 72xx and 25xx available for the next week or two for > MPLS playtime with an eye on finishing that portion of my CCIP. > >I've wrestled today with 12.2.4T3 on the 25xx, got utterly frustrated > with 12.2T(anything) on an older 7206, went back to 12.0.21ST, and still > didn't come up with a complete working system which might be related to > finicky old hardware. > > >If anyone has words of wisdom on which images would be appropriate > for an MPLS lab I'd sure love to hear it. > > > *IF* I get a good answer on this I'll take the time to make this lab > available to others after I've had my fill, but I don't imagine it'll > stay up for long unless the president gets a stream of thank you notes > from groupstudiers - any chance of this happening? If I'm the only guy > pursuing CCIP that doesn't already have an uberlab I guess I wouldn't be > that surprised ... email me and prove me wrong :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60309&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
not exactly what you want but... the 12.2.12a enterprise plus image works on the 3620's have you tried using cisco's feature navigator (www.cisco.com/go/fn) a colleague mentioned it to me when I was struggling with the new 'software advisor' I hope that helps! if you do find a working image for the 2500's please let us know! thanks ""neal r"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Thanks to the fellows at http://www.optimumdata.com I'm going to have > a lab with a mix of 72xx and 25xx available for the next week or two for > MPLS playtime with an eye on finishing that portion of my CCIP. > >I've wrestled today with 12.2.4T3 on the 25xx, got utterly frustrated > with 12.2T(anything) on an older 7206, went back to 12.0.21ST, and still > didn't come up with a complete working system which might be related to > finicky old hardware. > > >If anyone has words of wisdom on which images would be appropriate > for an MPLS lab I'd sure love to hear it. > > > *IF* I get a good answer on this I'll take the time to make this lab > available to others after I've had my fill, but I don't imagine it'll > stay up for long unless the president gets a stream of thank you notes > from groupstudiers - any chance of this happening? If I'm the only guy > pursuing CCIP that doesn't already have an uberlab I guess I wouldn't be > that surprised ... email me and prove me wrong :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60302&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
hey, Mark, thanks for the tip. I read Dennis' pdf, and checked out both the web sites mentioned. looks like this software has not been updated in quite a while. obviously it is unsupported. Chuck TANSTAAFL "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" ""Vicuna, Mark"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I know you can grab the mpls images for the 25xx series here: > > ftp-eng.cisco.com (anonymous) > > /rraszuk/specials > > c2500-js-l.20oct2001 > c2500-p-l.20oct2001 > c2500-p-l.tag > > Dennis L of course has his site http://home.attbi.com/~blaga/ > > Can't help you out specific for 72xx sorry.. > > > > cheers, > Mark. > > -Original Message- > From: neal r [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284] > > > Thanks to the fellows at http://www.optimumdata.com I'm going to have > a lab with a mix of 72xx and 25xx available for the next week or two for > MPLS playtime with an eye on finishing that portion of my CCIP. > >I've wrestled today with 12.2.4T3 on the 25xx, got utterly frustrated > with 12.2T(anything) on an older 7206, went back to 12.0.21ST, and still > didn't come up with a complete working system which might be related to > finicky old hardware. > > >If anyone has words of wisdom on which images would be appropriate > for an MPLS lab I'd sure love to hear it. > > > *IF* I get a good answer on this I'll take the time to make this lab > available to others after I've had my fill, but I don't imagine it'll > stay up for long unless the president gets a stream of thank you notes > from groupstudiers - any chance of this happening? If I'm the only guy > pursuing CCIP that doesn't already have an uberlab I guess I wouldn't be > that surprised ... email me and prove me wrong :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60300&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
""neal r"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Thanks to the fellows at http://www.optimumdata.com I'm going to have > a lab with a mix of 72xx and 25xx available for the next week or two for > MPLS playtime with an eye on finishing that portion of my CCIP. > >I've wrestled today with 12.2.4T3 on the 25xx, got utterly frustrated > with 12.2T(anything) on an older 7206, went back to 12.0.21ST, and still > didn't come up with a complete working system which might be related to > finicky old hardware. > > >If anyone has words of wisdom on which images would be appropriate > for an MPLS lab I'd sure love to hear it. This comes up in my job occasionally, so just to refresh my memory, I dug around a little bit with the IOS Software Advisor. I came up with a general impression that on the 72xx you need an enterprise release, usually ( not always ) in the T train. SA also states clearly that YMMV You might also try a service provider image SA came up with a number of these, mostly requiring 128 DRAM there was a 12.1.9A image that required only 64 DRAM. SA claims that MPLS is not available on the 25xx platform. SA also claims that Service Provider images are not available on the 25xx platform. However, the IOS upgrade planner shows any number of SP images for the 25xx. for example c2500-p-l.121-18.bin However, when checking the features of that image on SA, it shows no MPLS. So I will have to yield to those who have pointed to other places to get such a feature set for the 25xx. I've been told by other sources that MPLS is available of the 25xx. just can't locate it using the Cisco tools at my disposal. HTH > > > *IF* I get a good answer on this I'll take the time to make this lab > available to others after I've had my fill, but I don't imagine it'll > stay up for long unless the president gets a stream of thank you notes > from groupstudiers - any chance of this happening? If I'm the only guy > pursuing CCIP that doesn't already have an uberlab I guess I wouldn't be > that surprised ... email me and prove me wrong :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60297&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284]
I know you can grab the mpls images for the 25xx series here: ftp-eng.cisco.com (anonymous) /rraszuk/specials c2500-js-l.20oct2001 c2500-p-l.20oct2001 c2500-p-l.tag Dennis L of course has his site http://home.attbi.com/~blaga/ Can't help you out specific for 72xx sorry.. cheers, Mark. -Original Message- From: neal r [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS images for 7200? 2500? [7:60284] Thanks to the fellows at http://www.optimumdata.com I'm going to have a lab with a mix of 72xx and 25xx available for the next week or two for MPLS playtime with an eye on finishing that portion of my CCIP. I've wrestled today with 12.2.4T3 on the 25xx, got utterly frustrated with 12.2T(anything) on an older 7206, went back to 12.0.21ST, and still didn't come up with a complete working system which might be related to finicky old hardware. If anyone has words of wisdom on which images would be appropriate for an MPLS lab I'd sure love to hear it. *IF* I get a good answer on this I'll take the time to make this lab available to others after I've had my fill, but I don't imagine it'll stay up for long unless the president gets a stream of thank you notes from groupstudiers - any chance of this happening? If I'm the only guy pursuing CCIP that doesn't already have an uberlab I guess I wouldn't be that surprised ... email me and prove me wrong :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60290&t=60284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS VPN [7:60205]
And as a P router, can it? I do not have a OSM. "John Murphy" @groupstudy.com em 03/01/2003 11:24:41 Favor responder a "John Murphy" Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Assunto:Re: MPLS VPN [7:60205] Currently the 6500/7600 can only function as a PE with an OSM. Assuming you have one, you would configure the ethernet port your 2500 is connecting to into a unique vlan, then configure one of the Gig-E ports on the OSM as your 'upstream' using dot1q encapsulation, and terminate your VRF there. I've included an example below, HTH. Best Regards, John interface GE-WAN4/1.10 description 2500-MPLS-VPN-A encapsulation dot1Q 10 ip vrf forwarding vpnA ip address 10.1.2.3 255.255.255.252 mpls label protocol both end - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:12 AM Subject: MPLS VPN [7:60205] > I know how to set MPLS VPN in a network with 7507 as the Core routers. > > But what is necessary to integrate a 6500 switch with FlexWan module and > PA-HSSI/PA-ATM cards in the Core and keep the MPLS VPN service in the > location served by the switch? > > The network is like that: > > 2500-vpn-A--7500=7500-vpn-A---2500 >|||| >|||| > 2500vpn-A---6509=== Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60239&t=60205 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS VPN [7:60205]
Currently the 6500/7600 can only function as a PE with an OSM. Assuming you have one, you would configure the ethernet port your 2500 is connecting to into a unique vlan, then configure one of the Gig-E ports on the OSM as your 'upstream' using dot1q encapsulation, and terminate your VRF there. I've included an example below, HTH. Best Regards, John interface GE-WAN4/1.10 description 2500-MPLS-VPN-A encapsulation dot1Q 10 ip vrf forwarding vpnA ip address 10.1.2.3 255.255.255.252 mpls label protocol both end - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:12 AM Subject: MPLS VPN [7:60205] > I know how to set MPLS VPN in a network with 7507 as the Core routers. > > But what is necessary to integrate a 6500 switch with FlexWan module and > PA-HSSI/PA-ATM cards in the Core and keep the MPLS VPN service in the > location served by the switch? > > The network is like that: > > 2500-vpn-A--7500=7500-vpn-A---2500 >|||| >|||| > 2500vpn-A---6509=== Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60207&t=60205 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS MTU [7:59280]
Mohamad saro wrote: > > when I put command MPLS MTU 1512 on both ends of a serial > interface and > try to ping from one side to the other with packet sizes > greater than > 1500 and less than or equal 1512 with don't fragment bit set > the packets > are dropped any ideas? How are you specifying the packet size and what layer does the size refer to? Perhaps it refers to payload of the ICMP/IP packet. Generic IP adds 20 bytes for the IP header. ICMP adds 8 bytes. MPLS adds some bytes. The serial data-link-layer adds some bytes. You are probably beyond 1512 at this point. Priscilla > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59322&t=59280 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls ios files /special [7:57910]
ftp to ftp-eng.cisco.com (anonymous login) cd /rraszuk/specials here they are: -rw-r--r-- 1 23115eng 12940544 Feb 15 2002 c2500-js-l.20oct2001 -rw-r--r-- 1 23115eng 8303380 Feb 15 2002 c2500-p-l.20oct2001 -rw-r--r-- 1 23115eng 7973476 Feb 15 2002 c2500-p-l.tag hth Reinhold On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:13:33AM +, Vicuna, Mark wrote: > I'm unable to find the original posting on the location of the mpls > files for the 25xx series @ cisco.com > > I remember someone posting them on here but the original post is not in > the groupstudy.archives > > had a search in the specials dir on cisco.com but to no avail.. does > anyone know the location to these files? > > ps. i'm not after dennis.laganiere's site - although it is a good one > :-) > > cheers, > mark. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57930&t=57910 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS on low-end hardware [7:56487]
Guys, What is the minimal flash/ram memory needed to run this code on a 26xx. Rgds, Umar. ""Reinhold Fischer"" wrote in message news:200210300723.HAA11457@;groupstudy.com... > Michael, > > if it is only for lab/learning purpose you can use the 12.0S > images from ftp-eng.cisco.com. They are not supported by cisco, > but work quite well. Use anonymous login and look under /isp > > Note: The cisco2500 image does not have too much MPLS features > built in. No problems with the 2600 images here. > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 8275120 Oct 15 02:07 c2500-p-l.120-22.4.S2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 5671856 Oct 15 02:07 c2600-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 5846156 Oct 15 02:07 c3620-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 6048724 Oct 15 02:07 c3640-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 5372564 Oct 15 02:07 c4500-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 > > hth > > Reinhold > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:58:28PM +, Michael Vasilenko wrote: > > Hello! > > > > One question - is it possible to run MPLS (edge or LSR) on 26xx? > > Any experience? Right IOS? > > > > -- > > Michael Vasilenko Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56513&t=56487 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS on low-end hardware [7:56487]
Michael, if it is only for lab/learning purpose you can use the 12.0S images from ftp-eng.cisco.com. They are not supported by cisco, but work quite well. Use anonymous login and look under /isp Note: The cisco2500 image does not have too much MPLS features built in. No problems with the 2600 images here. -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 8275120 Oct 15 02:07 c2500-p-l.120-22.4.S2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 5671856 Oct 15 02:07 c2600-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 5846156 Oct 15 02:07 c3620-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 6048724 Oct 15 02:07 c3640-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 40002eng 5372564 Oct 15 02:07 c4500-p-mz.120-22.4.S2 hth Reinhold On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:58:28PM +, Michael Vasilenko wrote: > Hello! > > One question - is it possible to run MPLS (edge or LSR) on 26xx? > Any experience? Right IOS? > > -- > Michael Vasilenko Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56509&t=56487 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS on low-end hardware [7:56487]
""Michael Vasilenko"" wrote in message news:200210292058.UAA00599@;groupstudy.com... > Hello! > > One question - is it possible to run MPLS (edge or LSR) on 26xx? > Any experience? Right IOS? Sure, it's just flaky. And not surprisingly MPLS is not officially supported by Cisco on 26xx's, so if you are running a production MPLS network on such gear and you experience problems, you're f*cked. > > -- > Michael Vasilenko Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56494&t=56487 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS and QOS study materials for R&S Written [7:56099]
I was thinking of using the appropriate sections of the QoS Configuration Guide and Multiservice Configuration Guide (IOS 12.1) from the Cisco CD/Web. I figure they need to be read for the lab anyway (that's why I picked IOS 12.1). I started reading the QoS guide, and it has theory in the beginning and config stuff/examples later on. I like it because it's structured/organized (vs. reading a URL here and a URL there). But is it enough detail (and the right info.) for the test? Is this a good idea? Just wondered if others found these references to be helpful. - Jennifer P.S.- The duplex printer is great for this, and Kinko's can put spiral binding on the printouts - makes it nice and neat :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56181&t=56099 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS and QOS study materials for R&S Written [7:56099]
I used IP QOS from Ciscopress ISBN:1578701163 I relied on CCO for MPLS ""Jayagiri B Nair"" wrote in message news:200210221916.TAA17048@;groupstudy.com... > Hello friends, > > Please anybody could suggest the best books for mpls and qos topics for the > R&S written exam? > Any news about the new CCIE written exam?[from nov 4th?] > > Thanks and rgds > > jbnair Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56127&t=56099 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS for 2500 - almost (filename) [7:55988]
The file name is "MPLS for the 2500.ZIP" and it's in the "/" rather then "/upload" area... --- Dennis - Original Message - From: "Desmond" To: "Dennis Laganiere" Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:18 PM Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 - almost > Hi Dennis > > The file is gone. > > Could yo tell me where I can get the file ? > > Thank ! > > > Des > > - Original Message - > From: "Dennis Laganiere" > To: ; > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 7:39 PM > Subject: MPLS for 2500 - almost > > > > I've managed to find the IOS image for the 2500 that supports MPLS, but so > far > > I've only been able to load it on a couple of routers that have 18mb of > > memory. Even then, I run out of memory when I enable tag-switching. > Perhaps > > somebody else in the group has a better understanding of how memory has to > be > > configured to make it work. > > > > I posted instructions for downloading and implimenting it at > > www.laganiere.net, please let me know if anybody has greater success > getting > > it to work. If we can work out the bugs, I think this will be a useful > study > > tool; but I, personally, have had enough fustration for one day; I'm going > > outside to grill a couple of pizza's for the kids. > > > > Good luck all... > > > > --- Dennis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55988&t=55988 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
At 03:12 AM 10/1/2002 +, nrf wrote: > > > > > > > > I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where > > the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. > > The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like > > it to be. > >Here I must disagree. The fact is the traditional carriers basically are >the market, in the sense that they are the ones with money to spend. It >doesn't really matter if the standards bodies come up with all sorts of cool >and funky technologies if nobody implements them. The only providers who >are really in a position to implement much of anything these days are the >traditional carriers because they are the only ones who actually have money >(practically all of the pure Internet service-providers are bleeding red ink >everywhere). And those traditional carriers are only going to implement >something to the degree that it is profitable to do so. Fully agree here, however want to add that many RBOC/ILEC types are looking not solely at new revenue generation based upon new technology, but rather to maximize profits on existing revenue. In this context, decreasing the amount of transport networks required to support a variety of services tends to make sense which is a point that I believe you've made as well, but I wanted to reiterate. (been blackholed from mailing lists for a few days and suffered severe withdrawal) >Which is why I am concerned for the future of MPLS. In its original >conception, MPLS offered the promise for a generalized control-plane that >could potentially span all the gear that a carrier has to run. A Grand >Unified Theory of networking, if you will. I'm not sure how far back your time line dates with respect to the "original conception". For me, MPLS and its ancestors have generally fallen under the loose theme of providing cell like switching performance or low over VC's for IP. The most direct ancestor, Tag Switching, was entirely targeted at IP as far as I recall. >Now, it has become IP-centric, and Internet-centric in particular (i.e. the >involvement of the IETF).But the fact of the matter is that IP services >in general, and the Internet in particular, are still highly unprofitable >for the carriers. Untold billions have been spent on carrier Internet >infrastructure with nary a hope of ever getting a semi-reasonable return on >investment. The Internet has become a godsend to the consumer but a >financial nightmare for the carriers. Many service providers do derive profit from IP transit services particularly in the commercial space. Most tend to loose money on residential services with DSL being the biggest contributor. I expect most carries lose 10-15 US dollars a month per DSL subscriber. However, as you say, many of those same characters derive profit from frame/ATM based VPN offerings albeit those offering historically haven't been referred to as VPN to my memory. Building out networks that support the profitable growth and maintenance of the traditional frame /ATM VPN (or more aptly virtual leased line) while at the same time providing IP transport for IP data and other more value add services makes a good deal of sense. >Which is why I believe that any new carrier-style technology that is >directed towards the Internet will achieve unnecessarily slow adoption by >the carriers. Now don't get me wrong, MPLS will be adopted, the real >question is how quickly. If much of the work on MPLS is done mostly on IP >and Internet features, and not on the more traditional telco features, this >will slow the adoption of MPLS. Traditional carriers are not exactly >champing at the bit to spend money adopting new Internet technology now that >financial sanity has returned to the fold (notice how so many carriers are >cancelling or slowing their Internet buildouts?). I would suggest that MPLS is widely adopted in a variety of spaces. MPLS for traffic engineering had a good market in areas where fiber capacity wasn't as flush as it happens to be in the US (EMEA comes to mind here). MPLS for ATM transport (pseudo-wire encap like) has a pretty strong deployment in some very large networks providing a high speed, core for legacy ISP ATM networks. MPLS L3 VPN's would seem to be more and more widely deployed and as the L2 variants work themselves out in the IETF will likely see similarly wide adaptation based upon my observations (though I'm no luminary :) MPLS L2vpn as a replacement for traditional ATM/Frame networks makes a great deal of sense on paper and offers a pretty reasonable migration path and I've found many RBOC type customers very interested in talking about it. > > > > When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were > > deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: > > (1) Ubiquitous fiber > > (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the >topology > > to something of equal
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 06:04 PM 9/30/2002 +, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > >I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing > >protocol at all? Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. > >Forwarding is based on the labels. Is it for the label distribution > >component? Couldn't that be done with manual configuration? > > Static label assignment is tremendously onerous. Keep in mind that without > a control plane that has some topological awareness, you'd need to > configure label in/out relationships on every transit router in your > network, per LSP. Try that with 5000 LSPs :) I'd rather do 5-10 in a low > security prison myself. I disagree - I don't believe you need inherent topological awareness at all, at least not in an routing protocol that is inherent to the systems in question. Let me explain. When I said why couldn't LSP's just be implemented manually, I was opening the door to an LSP being a perfect drop-in replacement to today's ATM PVC's. Hey - ATM PVC's today are configured manually in the sense that there is usually an overarching piece of management software that the engineers use to build and rebuild all the PVC's and nobody seems to have a problem with that, and this obviates the need for PNNI or any other kind of dynamic topology calculation mechanism within the system itself. MPLS could do the same thing - it could provide the hooks for which companies could build management software to build permanent LSP's, as opposed to being forced to dance the IP tune even if they don't want to. What I'm saying is this. MPLS, in my eyes, seemed to offer a powerful management 'virtualization mechanism' for creating paths. Ideally, MPLS would remain generalized such that implementers could use a wide variety of ways to create LSP's, and could mix and match these ways as they see fit. But not anymore, MPLS is handcuffed to IP, and I think this IP-only obsession will slow the implementation of MPLS. Let's face it, IP, is on the whole, unprofitable for the provider. So in this financial day and age, it's not surprising that providers aren't exactly going to rush to implement any technology that is IP-centric. They will still adopt it because IP is the key to future profitability, but the implementation will be unnecessarily slowed. > > Pete > > > > > >Priscilla > > > > > >nrf wrote: > > > > > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote > > > in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I > > > didn't know > > > > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in > > > terms of > > > > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any > > > routing > > > protocol, > > > > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco > > > world, but > > > any > > > > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, > > > correct? > > > > > > > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative > > > merits of any > > > > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would > > > think, but > > > > what do I know? > > > > > > > > > I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require > > > IP at all? > > > At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called > > > Internet Protocol > > > Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has > > > effectively > > > become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized > > > control-plane mechanism > > > for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > > > > > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this > > > group. > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > > > corporation > > > > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful > > > links will be > > > > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaspreet > > > > > _ > > > > > > > > > > Consultant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > > > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > > > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > > > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > > > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > > > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached > > > files may contain > > > > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential > > > to the named > > > > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other > > > person > > > and/or > > > > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not > > > necessarily > > > > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this > > >
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
At 06:04 PM 9/30/2002 +, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing >protocol at all? Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. >Forwarding is based on the labels. Is it for the label distribution >component? Couldn't that be done with manual configuration? Static label assignment is tremendously onerous. Keep in mind that without a control plane that has some topological awareness, you'd need to configure label in/out relationships on every transit router in your network, per LSP. Try that with 5000 LSPs :) I'd rather do 5-10 in a low security prison myself. Pete >Priscilla > > >nrf wrote: > > > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote > > in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I > > didn't know > > > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in > > terms of > > > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any > > routing > > protocol, > > > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco > > world, but > > any > > > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, > > correct? > > > > > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative > > merits of any > > > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would > > think, but > > > what do I know? > > > > > > I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require > > IP at all? > > At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called > > Internet Protocol > > Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has > > effectively > > become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized > > control-plane mechanism > > for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > > > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this > > group. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > > corporation > > > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful > > links will be > > > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaspreet > > > > _ > > > > > > > > Consultant > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached > > files may contain > > > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential > > to the named > > > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other > > person > > and/or > > > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not > > necessarily > > > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this > > e-mail and > > any > > > > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply > > e-mail and > > > destroy > > > > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private > > information. > > > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use > > of > > > > this email is prohibited. > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54876&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> > > > > Which is why I believe that any new carrier-style technology that is > > directed towards the Internet will achieve unnecessarily slow adoption by > > the carriers. Now don't get me wrong, MPLS will be adopted, the real > > question is how quickly. If much of the work on MPLS is done mostly on IP > > and Internet features, and not on the more traditional telco features, > this > > will slow the adoption of MPLS. Traditional carriers are not exactly > > champing at the bit to spend money adopting new Internet technology now > that > > financial sanity has returned to the fold (notice how so many carriers are > > cancelling or slowing their Internet buildouts?). > > > CL: not anymore they aren't. see recent announcements by major carriers > regarding reductions in capital spending, which in turn will adversely > effect the rest of the food chain. Let me throw in the following. When the old-school telcos say that are slashing capital spending, they are still going to be spending many billions, just less than what they thought they would spend. They're not going to spend zero or anywhere near it, just less. This is a far cry from the New Age telcos whose 'spending cuts' are due to their bankruptcies, and whose spending really is going to fall to zero. So the point is that there are still billions left to be made by the vendors - but only if they offer technologies that make sense to the old-school telcos. Right now, those telcos are interested in something that can offer incremental improvements while still providing backwards compatibility with their existing infrastructure. Forklift replacements are definitely out of the question, as is any new technology that will require extensive testing and validation. > > > > > snip some more Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54694&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
one last shot before going to work ( below ): ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > snip a bit > Here I must disagree. The fact is the traditional carriers basically are > the market, in the sense that they are the ones with money to spend. It > doesn't really matter if the standards bodies come up with all sorts of cool > and funky technologies if nobody implements them. The only providers who > are really in a position to implement much of anything these days are the > traditional carriers because they are the only ones who actually have money > (practically all of the pure Internet service-providers are bleeding red ink > everywhere). And those traditional carriers are only going to implement > something to the degree that it is profitable to do so. CL: given the current carrier announcements of severe reductions in capital spending, it might seem that carrier based MPLS is moot for the time being anyway > > Which is why I am concerned for the future of MPLS. In its original > conception, MPLS offered the promise for a generalized control-plane that > could potentially span all the gear that a carrier has to run. A Grand > Unified Theory of networking, if you will. > > Now, it has become IP-centric, and Internet-centric in particular (i.e. the > involvement of the IETF).But the fact of the matter is that IP services > in general, and the Internet in particular, are still highly unprofitable > for the carriers. CL: not to mention the fact that carriers appear just to want to sell transport lines. the attitude seems to be that routers, switches, modems, or telephones are all the same - boxes that plug in to what the telcos offer. Untold billions have been spent on carrier Internet > infrastructure with nary a hope of ever getting a semi-reasonable return on > investment. The Internet has become a godsend to the consumer but a > financial nightmare for the carriers. CL: see previous comment > > Which is why I believe that any new carrier-style technology that is > directed towards the Internet will achieve unnecessarily slow adoption by > the carriers. Now don't get me wrong, MPLS will be adopted, the real > question is how quickly. If much of the work on MPLS is done mostly on IP > and Internet features, and not on the more traditional telco features, this > will slow the adoption of MPLS. Traditional carriers are not exactly > champing at the bit to spend money adopting new Internet technology now that > financial sanity has returned to the fold (notice how so many carriers are > cancelling or slowing their Internet buildouts?). CL: not anymore they aren't. see recent announcements by major carriers regarding reductions in capital spending, which in turn will adversely effect the rest of the food chain. > snip some more Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54629&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at snip a bit > > I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where > the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. > The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like > it to be. > > When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were > deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: > (1) Ubiquitous fiber > (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the topology > to something of equal complexity and hierarchy to what you can do in > SS#7. CL: not that the top bananas at the various telcos ever talk to me about it, but I sure have the distinct impression that telcos in general still believe without question that L3 devices are just boxes that plug into telco networks. L3 switch, router, CSU, modem, analogue telephone - they're all the same to a telco, or so it appears to me. hell, even Qwest, which started out as an innovative transport carrier / CLEC, went and bought themselves a telco and now look at them :-> > snip a bit > > What do you propose as a scalable alternative that doesn't simply > meet telephony needs? > CL: the question is really "why should a telco care, so long as you buy whatever it is they want to sell you?" of all the ironies, these days it seems like my employer's biggest foil is former parent AT&T, who are in our faces trying to steal all our customers by offering dark fiber - something we don't want to do because there's nothing in it for us. AT&T the telco is still selling lines - only they aren't lit. So what does AT&T care about MPLS, if what they sell is dark? My employer, on the other hand, wants to sell SONET and gigaman. What do we care about MPLS, just so long as you buy. CL: Like I said, not that I know a lot about running a telco, but what's in it for the telco? snip Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54613&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> > > > I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where > the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. > The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like > it to be. Here I must disagree. The fact is the traditional carriers basically are the market, in the sense that they are the ones with money to spend. It doesn't really matter if the standards bodies come up with all sorts of cool and funky technologies if nobody implements them. The only providers who are really in a position to implement much of anything these days are the traditional carriers because they are the only ones who actually have money (practically all of the pure Internet service-providers are bleeding red ink everywhere). And those traditional carriers are only going to implement something to the degree that it is profitable to do so. Which is why I am concerned for the future of MPLS. In its original conception, MPLS offered the promise for a generalized control-plane that could potentially span all the gear that a carrier has to run. A Grand Unified Theory of networking, if you will. Now, it has become IP-centric, and Internet-centric in particular (i.e. the involvement of the IETF).But the fact of the matter is that IP services in general, and the Internet in particular, are still highly unprofitable for the carriers. Untold billions have been spent on carrier Internet infrastructure with nary a hope of ever getting a semi-reasonable return on investment. The Internet has become a godsend to the consumer but a financial nightmare for the carriers. Which is why I believe that any new carrier-style technology that is directed towards the Internet will achieve unnecessarily slow adoption by the carriers. Now don't get me wrong, MPLS will be adopted, the real question is how quickly. If much of the work on MPLS is done mostly on IP and Internet features, and not on the more traditional telco features, this will slow the adoption of MPLS. Traditional carriers are not exactly champing at the bit to spend money adopting new Internet technology now that financial sanity has returned to the fold (notice how so many carriers are cancelling or slowing their Internet buildouts?). > > When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were > deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: > (1) Ubiquitous fiber > (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the topology > to something of equal complexity and hierarchy to what you can do in > SS#7. > > >MPLS has potentially far more applicability than just in the Internet (for > >those who didn't catch it, the 'I' in IETF stands for Internet). For > >example, MPLS has tremendous potential for all the world's carrier's ATM > >networks. But right now, for them to take advantage, they have to upgrade > >their ATM switches to IP, rather than just installing a MPLS multi-service > >switch as a dropin replacement. > > > >> > >> Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet > >> forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based > >> on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. > > > >Neither is draft-martini, draft kompella, draft-fischer, or any of the other > >drafts. > > > >But the point is not the forwarding plane, it's the control plane, which > >still relies on IP. > > What do you propose as a scalable alternative that doesn't simply > meet telephony needs? I propose that MPLS exist as a control-plane technology that sits 'above' LDP/RSVP (in the case of IP) and PNNI (in the case of ATM) and other dynamic-provisioning technologies (in the case of, say, ADM's). MPLS would then be a generalized way to assign labels, and the actual mechanism of telling individual nodes of such label assignment would be the task of LDP/RSVP or PNNI or whatever. Naturally a lot of details would have to be worked out, but I believe this is not unreasonable as a gameplan. > > > > >> > >> The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP > >> switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional > >> routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply > >> didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. > >> > >> Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both > >> for path setup and transport. > > > >And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > >functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to > >be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > >who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > >transition path. > > Or some carriers may be displaced by VoX. I've seen quite a number of > marketing research documents that suggest the typical telco wants 90% > L2, 10% L3, because that's what they think their provisioning people > can understand. What I want to know is how many carriers
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
What was the question? At 08:25 PM 9/30/2002 +, Kohli, Jaspreet wrote: >Thank You everyone for the valuable input . This has helped me put the issue >in the correct prospective !!! > > >Cheers > > >Jaspreet > _ > >Consultant > >Andrew NZ Inc >Box 50 691, Porirua >Wellington 6230, New Zealand >Phone +64 4 238 0723 >Fax +64 4 238 0701 >e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain >information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named >recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or >organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily >reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any >attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >your copy of this message. Thank you. > >This message is for the designated recipient only and may >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender >immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of >this email is prohibited. > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54587&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> > >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at >all? >> >At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet >Protocol >> >Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has >effectively >> >become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane >mechanism >> >for which is what it was originally intended. >> > >> >> Let me offer a different way to look at it. MPLS really isn't >> monolithic. As a sub-IP protocol in the IETF, basic MPLS still has >> separable forwarding and control plane aspects. The control plane >> involves path setup protocols such as RSVP-TE and LDP. These, in >> turn, have to get overall topology information from _somewhere_. >> Besides IP routing protocols and PNNI, what is there for that purpose >> that wouldn't need to be invented? > >You just hit it on the head. First of all, why is it considered a sub-IP >protocol? In fact, why is the IETF running the show in the first place? Because it can, and does. I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like it to be. When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: (1) Ubiquitous fiber (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the topology to something of equal complexity and hierarchy to what you can do in SS#7. >MPLS has potentially far more applicability than just in the Internet (for >those who didn't catch it, the 'I' in IETF stands for Internet). For >example, MPLS has tremendous potential for all the world's carrier's ATM >networks. But right now, for them to take advantage, they have to upgrade >their ATM switches to IP, rather than just installing a MPLS multi-service >switch as a dropin replacement. > >> >> Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet >> forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based >> on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. > >Neither is draft-martini, draft kompella, draft-fischer, or any of the other >drafts. > >But the point is not the forwarding plane, it's the control plane, which >still relies on IP. What do you propose as a scalable alternative that doesn't simply meet telephony needs? > >> >> The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP >> switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional >> routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply >> didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. >> >> Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both >> for path setup and transport. > >And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport >functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to >be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers >who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth >transition path. Or some carriers may be displaced by VoX. I've seen quite a number of marketing research documents that suggest the typical telco wants 90% L2, 10% L3, because that's what they think their provisioning people can understand. The models of manual provisioning, settlements, central coordinating authorities, etc., still persists in the carrier view of the world. Also, there are a fair number of vendors that want to retrofit full MPLS into the spaghetti code of their ATM switches. I've tried to do that. It was a nightmare. PNNI isn't enough. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54582&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>Jelly doughnut? I don't get it - I thought he was talking about the Shiite >population in Iran which dominated news a couple decades ago with the rise >of the Ayatollah Khomeini... > >A Berliner, er, jelly doughnut sounds a bit tasty, though... JFK sure >thought so - especially in Germany... JFK is what I was thinking of. I usually think of the former as Shi'a, just as I don't think of Sunnites. Not trying to start a literally religious war! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54584&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
Jelly doughnut? I don't get it - I thought he was talking about the Shiite population in Iran which dominated news a couple decades ago with the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini... A Berliner, er, jelly doughnut sounds a bit tasty, though... JFK sure thought so - especially in Germany... Bill Creighton CCNP Senior System Engineer Motorola iDEN CNRC Packet Data MPS -Original Message- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507] >""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >> >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's >generally >> >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. >> > >> >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's >only >> >one answer - ISIS. >> > >> >> When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. >> "-) > > >CL: in today's sensative geopolitical environment, one must take care not to >mispronounce either, and end up talking about a partcular religious flavor >made famous by cetain events in a certain part of the world a couple of >decades ago. Just remember to keep that last vowel short, rather than long >;-> > Are you suggesting someone in Texas is a jelly doughnut? Hmmm...that was about four decades ago, wasn't it? Time flies. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54581&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >> >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's >generally >> >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. >> > >> >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's >only >> >one answer - ISIS. >> > >> >> When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. >> "-) > > >CL: in today's sensative geopolitical environment, one must take care not to >mispronounce either, and end up talking about a partcular religious flavor >made famous by cetain events in a certain part of the world a couple of >decades ago. Just remember to keep that last vowel short, rather than long >;-> > Are you suggesting someone in Texas is a jelly doughnut? Hmmm...that was about four decades ago, wasn't it? Time flies. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54578&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Kent Yu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > [snip] > > > > And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > > functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs > to > > be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > > who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > > transition path. > > > > Is a smooth transition possible at all? > If, by transition, you mean running mpls on the atm gears, my impression was > carriers seem not like messing their ATM network with mpls, there always be > exceptions. I can see the financial gains of doing this is huge, but a > smooth transition is just beyond my limited imagination. Actually, I am thinking more of a situation where instead of buying more ATM switches, carriers will instead buy multiservice switches that are fully MPLS capable, but run a kind of MPLS that is fully compatible with ATM signalling (which unfortunately does not exist right now). Carriers are always refreshing their existing ATM networks (because stuff gets old and fully depreciated), so if stuff needs to get replaced anyway, wouldn't it be nice to replace it with this kind of switch I'm talking about? Eventually, over a period of years, the entire ATM infrastructure would be fully replaced with MPLS. But the only way to do this smoothly is if those MPLS switches were a full and complete drop-in replacement for ATM. > > Let's hope the router vendors can eventually build routers as stable as ATM > switches, IMHO, this could come before any smooth transition could be > invented. It's not just a matter of making routers more stable, although that's part of it. It's also a matter of making LSP's as reliable as ATM VC's. > > My .02 > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > >> > > > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > > corporation > > > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will > > be > > > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54575&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: > >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally > >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. > > > >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's only > >one answer - ISIS. > > > > When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. > "-) CL: in today's sensative geopolitical environment, one must take care not to mispronounce either, and end up talking about a partcular religious flavor made famous by cetain events in a certain part of the world a couple of decades ago. Just remember to keep that last vowel short, rather than long ;-> > > ISIS is certainly more scalable in a stable, flat topology. OSPF has > different scalability capabilities, admittedly more characteristic of > enterprises, but also potentially of POPs. > > Today's OSPF has more capabilities for hot potato routing, selective > flooding, etc. ISIS is being extended (e.g., L1L2 routers) to do some > of these things, although certain aspects of both may go into MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54573&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. > >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's only >one answer - ISIS. > When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. "-) ISIS is certainly more scalable in a stable, flat topology. OSPF has different scalability capabilities, admittedly more characteristic of enterprises, but also potentially of POPs. Today's OSPF has more capabilities for hot potato routing, selective flooding, etc. ISIS is being extended (e.g., L1L2 routers) to do some of these things, although certain aspects of both may go into MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54571&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... [snip] > > And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to > be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > transition path. > Is a smooth transition possible at all? If, by transition, you mean running mpls on the atm gears, my impression was carriers seem not like messing their ATM network with mpls, there always be exceptions. I can see the financial gains of doing this is huge, but a smooth transition is just beyond my limited imagination. Let's hope the router vendors can eventually build routers as stable as ATM switches, IMHO, this could come before any smooth transition could be invented. My .02 Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > >> > > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > >> > > >> Chuck > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > corporation > > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will > be > > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54569&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>""Haakon Claassen (hclaasse)"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> Perhaps the Multi protocol >> >> Is in regards to the fact that it can support multiple routing contexts >> (one per vrf) > >That's a pretty weak definition of 'multiprotocol'. > >More to the point, even if you're talking about RFC2547 vpn's (which is only >a subset of MPLS functionality), you still require IP in the core. Why is >that required? Why can't I, for example, build RFC2547 vpn's on an ATM >core, where my ATM switches do not speak IP, but do speak a (theoretical) >version of MPLS that is completely compatible with ATM dynamic signalling? That's almost exactly what Ipsilon did with IP switching. If for no other reason, they ran into scaling problems, because they needed a VPI/VCI field for every flow. > >Now you might say that I could do this by just installing IP edge (PE) >routers over an ATM core, and the PE routers peer to each other with IP and >MPLS, and the ATM switches peer to each other with PNNI. But that sucks. >The whole promise of MPLS was to offer a unified control-plane. Current architectural thinking is that control planes are necessarily multilayered. Routing protocols and label distribution protocols, to say nothing about refinements in traffic engineering and failover, operate at different conceptual levels. For that matter, there are medium-specific control protocols below MPLS. > Not to >mention I still have the N-squared scaling problem with my edge routers. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54568&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing >protocol at all? To determine the potential topologies over which end-to-end, and alternate (e.g., shared risk groups) paths can be established, and THEN to which labels can be assigned on a node-by-node basis. >Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. Forwarding is >based on the labels Forwarding != label distribution != LSR/LER designation != topology discovery FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
Thank You everyone for the valuable input . This has helped me put the issue in the correct prospective !!! Cheers Jaspreet _ Consultant Andrew NZ Inc Box 50 691, Porirua Wellington 6230, New Zealand Phone +64 4 238 0723 Fax +64 4 238 0701 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy your copy of this message. Thank you. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54566&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing > protocol at all? Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. > Forwarding is based on the labels. Is it for the label distribution > component? Couldn't that be done with manual configuration?> I'm worried specifically about the label-distribution component (or more generally, the control plane). Naturally one could hard-code LSP's into everything. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54562&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? > >At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol > >Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively > >become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism > >for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > Let me offer a different way to look at it. MPLS really isn't > monolithic. As a sub-IP protocol in the IETF, basic MPLS still has > separable forwarding and control plane aspects. The control plane > involves path setup protocols such as RSVP-TE and LDP. These, in > turn, have to get overall topology information from _somewhere_. > Besides IP routing protocols and PNNI, what is there for that purpose > that wouldn't need to be invented? You just hit it on the head. First of all, why is it considered a sub-IP protocol? In fact, why is the IETF running the show in the first place? MPLS has potentially far more applicability than just in the Internet (for those who didn't catch it, the 'I' in IETF stands for Internet). For example, MPLS has tremendous potential for all the world's carrier's ATM networks. But right now, for them to take advantage, they have to upgrade their ATM switches to IP, rather than just installing a MPLS multi-service switch as a dropin replacement. > > Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet > forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based > on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. Neither is draft-martini, draft kompella, draft-fischer, or any of the other drafts. But the point is not the forwarding plane, it's the control plane, which still relies on IP. > > The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP > switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional > routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply > didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. > > Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both > for path setup and transport. And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth transition path. > > > > > > >> > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > >> > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > >> > >> Chuck > >> > >> > >> > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54561&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Haakon Claassen (hclaasse)"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Perhaps the Multi protocol > > Is in regards to the fact that it can support multiple routing contexts > (one per vrf) That's a pretty weak definition of 'multiprotocol'. More to the point, even if you're talking about RFC2547 vpn's (which is only a subset of MPLS functionality), you still require IP in the core. Why is that required? Why can't I, for example, build RFC2547 vpn's on an ATM core, where my ATM switches do not speak IP, but do speak a (theoretical) version of MPLS that is completely compatible with ATM dynamic signalling? Now you might say that I could do this by just installing IP edge (PE) routers over an ATM core, and the PE routers peer to each other with IP and MPLS, and the ATM switches peer to each other with PNNI. But that sucks. The whole promise of MPLS was to offer a unified control-plane. Not to mention I still have the N-squared scaling problem with my edge routers. > > resg Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54560&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally > considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's only one answer - ISIS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54558&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing protocol at all? Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. Forwarding is based on the labels. Is it for the label distribution component? Couldn't that be done with manual configuration? Priscilla nrf wrote: > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote > in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I > didn't know > > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in > terms of > > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any > routing > protocol, > > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco > world, but > any > > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, > correct? > > > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative > merits of any > > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would > think, but > > what do I know? > > > I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require > IP at all? > At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called > Internet Protocol > Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has > effectively > become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized > control-plane mechanism > for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > > > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this > group. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > corporation > > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful > links will be > > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > > > > Jaspreet > > > _ > > > > > > Consultant > > > > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached > files may contain > > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential > to the named > > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other > person > and/or > > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not > necessarily > > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this > e-mail and > any > > > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply > e-mail and > > destroy > > > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private > information. > > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use > of > > > this email is prohibited. > > > > > -- > > -- > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54555&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
At 2:52 AM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know >> before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of >> operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing >protocol, >> correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but >any >> old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? >> >> So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any >> routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but > > what do I know? As long as the routing protocol gives MPLS path setup the topology information it needs (see below), the protocol is irrelevant. Realistically, most such development is being done in ISIS and OSPF. So a direct comparison between routing protocols and MPLS doesn't make sense, although when I was at Nortel, there was a widespread (and wrong) assumption that somehow, magically, MPLS would replace IP. Why are you considering MPLS? I still consider it more of a carrier mechanism than one for enterprises. What problem are you trying to solve? > > >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? >At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol >Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively >become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism >for which is what it was originally intended. > Let me offer a different way to look at it. MPLS really isn't monolithic. As a sub-IP protocol in the IETF, basic MPLS still has separable forwarding and control plane aspects. The control plane involves path setup protocols such as RSVP-TE and LDP. These, in turn, have to get overall topology information from _somewhere_. Besides IP routing protocols and PNNI, what is there for that purpose that wouldn't need to be invented? Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both for path setup and transport. > >> >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. >> >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54545&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>From the SP point of view either use OSPF or ISIS for scalability, standards and QoS features. For example only these two protocols will allow you to do traffic engineering with MPLS over your backbone. From the client point side EIGRP is not one of the protocols to be used between PE-CE. MPLS course material didn't spoke about using EIGRP with MPLS. >From: "Kohli, Jaspreet" > >I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation >should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be >greatly appreciated . > > >Thanks as always > > >Jaspreet >_ > >Consultant > > >Andrew NZ Inc >Box 50 691, Porirua >Wellington 6230, New Zealand >Phone +64 4 238 0723 >Fax +64 4 238 0701 >e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain >information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named >recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or >organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily >reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any >attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >your copy of this message. Thank you. > > >This message is for the designated recipient only and may >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender >immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of >this email is prohibited. > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54532&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
Hi, The question should be what you want to do with MPLS, so what is the reason you want to implement MPLS in the first place. - MPLS VPN's: EIGRP could be used - Make core BGP free: EIGRP can be used - MPLS Traffic Engineering: EIGRP can NOT be used, only OSPF/ISIS For the first 2 you could use EIGRP. The discussion then would be how EIGRP compares to OSPF/ISIS in your network. Normal items like scalability, stability etc are then your decision criteria. If MPLS VPNs are your main reason for using MPLS, you might want to look at the supported routing protocols between the PE-CE. At this point, afaik, EIGRP is not yet available. It is on the roadmap but not yet available. For MPLS Traffic engineering (TE) the only option is a link state protocol. This is because they give "complete" visibility into (parts) of the network. Both ISIS and OSPF have extensions that make them MPLS TE capable. Cheers, Willy Schoots -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kohli, Jaspreet Sent: maandag 30 september 2002 2:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507] I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be greatly appreciated . Thanks as always Jaspreet _ Consultant Andrew NZ Inc Box 50 691, Porirua Wellington 6230, New Zealand Phone +64 4 238 0723 Fax +64 4 238 0701 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy your copy of this message. Thank you. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54530&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
Perhaps the Multi protocol Is in regards to the fact that it can support multiple routing contexts (one per vrf) resg Haakon Claassen EMEA - IT Transport Services -WAN Cisco Systems De Kleetlaan 6b - Pegasus Park B-1831 Diegem (Belgium) -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: maandag 30 september 2002 4:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507] ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing protocol, > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but any > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but > what do I know? I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism for which is what it was originally intended. > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > Chuck > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > Jaspreet > > _ > > > > Consultant > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any > > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy > > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > > > -- > -- > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > > this email is prohibited. > > -- > -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54524&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
HI What are your concerns? The IGP used on the net you want to deploy MPLS is only used for the MPLS control plane. The MPLS data plane will not look at Layer3 destination IP addresses only to labels. regards Haakon Claassen EMEA - IT Transport Services -WAN Cisco Systems De Kleetlaan 6b - Pegasus Park B-1831 Diegem (Belgium) -Original Message- From: Chuck's Long Road [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: maandag 30 september 2002 3:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507] hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing protocol, correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but any old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but what do I know? I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. Chuck ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > greatly appreciated . > > > Thanks as always > > > Jaspreet > _ > > Consultant > > > Andrew NZ Inc > Box 50 691, Porirua > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > -- -- > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > this email is prohibited. > -- -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54523&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know > > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of > > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing > protocol, > > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but > any > > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? > > > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any > > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but > > what do I know? > > > I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? > At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol > Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively > become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism > for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > > > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > > > > Jaspreet > > > _ > > > > > > Consultant > > > > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain > > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named > > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person > and/or > > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily > > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and > any > > > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy > > > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > > > this email is prohibited. > > > > -- > > -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54518&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing protocol, > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but any > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but > what do I know? I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism for which is what it was originally intended. > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > Chuck > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > Jaspreet > > _ > > > > Consultant > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any > > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy > > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > > > -- > -- > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > > this email is prohibited. > > -- > -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54515&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing protocol, correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but any old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but what do I know? I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. Chuck ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > greatly appreciated . > > > Thanks as always > > > Jaspreet > _ > > Consultant > > > Andrew NZ Inc > Box 50 691, Porirua > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > -- -- > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > this email is prohibited. > -- -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54509&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
If you can find the e-mail address, go ask Ivan Pepelnjak. If there is one person in Cisco who knows that answer, it is him. Theo "Kohli, Jaspreet" Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/30/2002 09:15 AM Please respond to "Kohli, Jaspreet" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507] I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be greatly appreciated . Thanks as always Jaspreet _ Consultant Andrew NZ Inc Box 50 691, Porirua Wellington 6230, New Zealand Phone+64 4 238 0723 Fax +64 4 238 0701 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy your copy of this message. Thank you. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54508&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS on 2500 [7:54246]
no, there is only one image that can run MPLS on 25xx's and it was not developed for release, it is used only internally in Cisco. 25xx were not designed for MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54266&t=54246 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353]
AFAIK no 2500 images will support MPLS, only the 2600 and above Francois -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim Medley Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2002 2:53 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] So has anyone actually found an IOS image for a 2500 that supports MPLS? I'd like to learn about MPLS in my home lab. I couldn't find anything in thr feature navigator. tm Tim Medley, CCNP+Voice, CCDP, CWNA Sr. Network Architect VoIP Group iReadyWorld -Original Message- From: Tom Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] If I understand this correctly, cisco routers support this RFC 3032 feature. Then the next question is, Do any Cisco routers support VoMPLS, where lines would bring analog or digital voice into voice ports and the router would translate (transcode?) the stream into bits that are encapsulated as the payload of MPLS frames in accord with MPLS Forum Implementation Agreement dated July 27, 2001? I'm not sure about the addressing and other details, but I'd just like to know if cisco routers can do this wihtout the intervention of IP packets. (And approximately what classifying, marking and queueing would the routers use on the PPP links if other traffic such as IP or IPX non-voice data were also present. But that is asking too much at this point. Maybe later.) -- TT Larkin, Richard wrote: > Definitely yes with PPP - a new NCP (MPLSCP) provides indication that the > frame is an MPLS frame instead of an IP or IPX frame. MPLS is treated as > just another network layer protocol. > > Not sure about HDLC though. > > Richard Larkin > > -Original Message- > From: Tom Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2002 4:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] > > > MPLS'ers, > > Assuming you find the IOS that supports MPLS on the 2500 > or 2600, is it possible then to set up a little MPLS cloud > with HDLC or PPP links connecting the routers? > > Alternatively, we have used the MPLS routers as access > devices to connect to a FR cloud (ATM too but we don't have > the ATM switches yet). But we'd like to just use three or > four inexpensive 2500/2600 routers with HDLC/PPP serial > links as the cloud. Can it be done? > > -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53530&t=53353 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353]
So has anyone actually found an IOS image for a 2500 that supports MPLS? I'd like to learn about MPLS in my home lab. I couldn't find anything in thr feature navigator. tm Tim Medley, CCNP+Voice, CCDP, CWNA Sr. Network Architect VoIP Group iReadyWorld -Original Message- From: Tom Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] If I understand this correctly, cisco routers support this RFC 3032 feature. Then the next question is, Do any Cisco routers support VoMPLS, where lines would bring analog or digital voice into voice ports and the router would translate (transcode?) the stream into bits that are encapsulated as the payload of MPLS frames in accord with MPLS Forum Implementation Agreement dated July 27, 2001? I'm not sure about the addressing and other details, but I'd just like to know if cisco routers can do this wihtout the intervention of IP packets. (And approximately what classifying, marking and queueing would the routers use on the PPP links if other traffic such as IP or IPX non-voice data were also present. But that is asking too much at this point. Maybe later.) -- TT Larkin, Richard wrote: > Definitely yes with PPP - a new NCP (MPLSCP) provides indication that the > frame is an MPLS frame instead of an IP or IPX frame. MPLS is treated as > just another network layer protocol. > > Not sure about HDLC though. > > Richard Larkin > > -Original Message- > From: Tom Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2002 4:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] > > > MPLS'ers, > > Assuming you find the IOS that supports MPLS on the 2500 > or 2600, is it possible then to set up a little MPLS cloud > with HDLC or PPP links connecting the routers? > > Alternatively, we have used the MPLS routers as access > devices to connect to a FR cloud (ATM too but we don't have > the ATM switches yet). But we'd like to just use three or > four inexpensive 2500/2600 routers with HDLC/PPP serial > links as the cloud. Can it be done? > > -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53525&t=53353 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353]
If I understand this correctly, cisco routers support this RFC 3032 feature. Then the next question is, Do any Cisco routers support VoMPLS, where lines would bring analog or digital voice into voice ports and the router would translate (transcode?) the stream into bits that are encapsulated as the payload of MPLS frames in accord with MPLS Forum Implementation Agreement dated July 27, 2001? I'm not sure about the addressing and other details, but I'd just like to know if cisco routers can do this wihtout the intervention of IP packets. (And approximately what classifying, marking and queueing would the routers use on the PPP links if other traffic such as IP or IPX non-voice data were also present. But that is asking too much at this point. Maybe later.) -- TT Larkin, Richard wrote: > Definitely yes with PPP - a new NCP (MPLSCP) provides indication that the > frame is an MPLS frame instead of an IP or IPX frame. MPLS is treated as > just another network layer protocol. > > Not sure about HDLC though. > > Richard Larkin > > -Original Message- > From: Tom Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2002 4:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] > > > MPLS'ers, > > Assuming you find the IOS that supports MPLS on the 2500 > or 2600, is it possible then to set up a little MPLS cloud > with HDLC or PPP links connecting the routers? > > Alternatively, we have used the MPLS routers as access > devices to connect to a FR cloud (ATM too but we don't have > the ATM switches yet). But we'd like to just use three or > four inexpensive 2500/2600 routers with HDLC/PPP serial > links as the cloud. Can it be done? > > -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53524&t=53353 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353]
Definitely yes with PPP - a new NCP (MPLSCP) provides indication that the frame is an MPLS frame instead of an IP or IPX frame. MPLS is treated as just another network layer protocol. Not sure about HDLC though. Richard Larkin -Original Message- From: Tom Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2002 4:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS for 2500 [7:53353] MPLS'ers, Assuming you find the IOS that supports MPLS on the 2500 or 2600, is it possible then to set up a little MPLS cloud with HDLC or PPP links connecting the routers? Alternatively, we have used the MPLS routers as access devices to connect to a FR cloud (ATM too but we don't have the ATM switches yet). But we'd like to just use three or four inexpensive 2500/2600 routers with HDLC/PPP serial links as the cloud. Can it be done? -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53519&t=53353 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Books [7:53255]
Juniper's site has loads of of mpls goodness. Mark W. Odette II wrote: > This is a learning forum, with no hard-fast rule to boycott the > acknowledgement of "other vendors". > > Even Cisco documents (to an extent) how to interconnect their equipment > to competitors' equipment on CCO. So there shouldn't be a big deal. > > So, if you wouldn't mind, please make an addendum to your last post and > tell us the name of the vendor that has these oh-so-wonderful white > papers! > > Thanks, > Mark > > -Original Message- > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MPLS Books [7:53255] > > Depends on what you want. It is my opinion that neither is really that > good. Don't get me wrong, they're OK, but they certainly aren't worthy > of > touching Doyle, not by a long shot. The Pepelnjak one talks a lot about > VPN's but makes absolutely no mention of TE. The Alwayn one talks about > TE, > if briefly. Like I said, neither book is really comprehensive. And > unfortunately, as you might expect with a fast-moving technology like > MPLS, > both books are already somewhat obsolete. > > The best high-level explanations of MPLS, especially MPLS VPN's, are > white > papers from, err, another vendor that shall remain unnamed. > > > ""Silju Pillai"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >>I would like to know which is the best book on Cisco MPLS-VPN. I saw > > two > >>books on MPLS VPN Architectures of the same author in Ciscopress and > > amazon. > >>Whats the difference between these two? Which one is better? -- Chris Theiss IPG WAN Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] (312) 425-6624 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53495&t=53255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Books [7:53255]
This is a learning forum, with no hard-fast rule to boycott the acknowledgement of "other vendors". Even Cisco documents (to an extent) how to interconnect their equipment to competitors' equipment on CCO. So there shouldn't be a big deal. So, if you wouldn't mind, please make an addendum to your last post and tell us the name of the vendor that has these oh-so-wonderful white papers! Thanks, Mark -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS Books [7:53255] Depends on what you want. It is my opinion that neither is really that good. Don't get me wrong, they're OK, but they certainly aren't worthy of touching Doyle, not by a long shot. The Pepelnjak one talks a lot about VPN's but makes absolutely no mention of TE. The Alwayn one talks about TE, if briefly. Like I said, neither book is really comprehensive. And unfortunately, as you might expect with a fast-moving technology like MPLS, both books are already somewhat obsolete. The best high-level explanations of MPLS, especially MPLS VPN's, are white papers from, err, another vendor that shall remain unnamed. ""Silju Pillai"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I would like to know which is the best book on Cisco MPLS-VPN. I saw two > books on MPLS VPN Architectures of the same author in Ciscopress and amazon. > Whats the difference between these two? Which one is better? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53489&t=53255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Books [7:53255]
Depends on what you want. It is my opinion that neither is really that good. Don't get me wrong, they're OK, but they certainly aren't worthy of touching Doyle, not by a long shot. The Pepelnjak one talks a lot about VPN's but makes absolutely no mention of TE. The Alwayn one talks about TE, if briefly. Like I said, neither book is really comprehensive. And unfortunately, as you might expect with a fast-moving technology like MPLS, both books are already somewhat obsolete. The best high-level explanations of MPLS, especially MPLS VPN's, are white papers from, err, another vendor that shall remain unnamed. ""Silju Pillai"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I would like to know which is the best book on Cisco MPLS-VPN. I saw two > books on MPLS VPN Architectures of the same author in Ciscopress and amazon. > Whats the difference between these two? Which one is better? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53460&t=53255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
I think it is not a problem if this is technically doable, VoIP and VoATM both work, but I am not sure if many companies can tolerate the availability of the IP network when it comes to their critical voice traffic. ATM switches will sit in a network as if they do not exist, if you do not touch it or overload the capacity, they may not bother you for years, can a rotuer in an IP network do that? Kent - Original Message - From: "bbfaye" To: Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:21 AM Subject: Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346] > Kent, > I heard equant guys managing a nice MPLS l3 vpn based on cisco's machines. > And they offer 4 class qos and voice service to their subscriber. > any one from equant? > > -- > > >Peter, > > > >> To me, its LANE all > >> over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and > >try > >> and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your > >> control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache > >> from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find > >someone > >> who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. > > > >I agree that STP should not be beyond the campus, anything up from better be > >ip based. > >I think the original question was about how to separate vpns on lower end > >devices, > >either label or vlan tag, ie configuring l2vpn on many access level devices > >vs. configuring vlans, I guess vlans are easy to configure and manage in > >this case. > >For our discussion, IMHO, LANE is too complicated for the subscribers and > >l3vpn is not easy for the providers, l2vpn is, relatively speaking, simple > >for both . > > > >> > >> I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks > >> with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported > >> by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. > >> > > > >I would like to know how people are using IP/MPLS network to integrate voice > >and data? > > > >Thanks > >Kent > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +, bbfaye wrote: > >> >we are handling a case of a MAN project now. > >> >We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means > >we > >> >have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access > >nodes(expensive...). > >> >Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the > >> >aggressive > >> >nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the > >> >disadvantage. > >> >Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls > >vpn > >> in > >> >the man? > >> >thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50076&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
Peter, > To me, its LANE all > over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and try > and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your > control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache > from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find someone > who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. I agree that STP should not be beyond the campus, anything up from better be ip based. I think the original question was about how to separate vpns on lower end devices, either label or vlan tag, ie configuring l2vpn on many access level devices vs. configuring vlans, I guess vlans are easy to configure and manage in this case. For our discussion, IMHO, LANE is too complicated for the subscribers and l3vpn is not easy for the providers, l2vpn is, relatively speaking, simple for both . > > I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks > with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported > by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. > I would like to know how people are using IP/MPLS network to integrate voice and data? Thanks Kent > > > > > > At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +, bbfaye wrote: > >we are handling a case of a MAN project now. > >We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means we > >have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). > >Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the > >aggressive > >nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the > >disadvantage. > >Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn > in > >the man? > >thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49676&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
In my impression,most switches can not afford to large number of 802.1q vlan trunk. hundreds of tunk vlan will cause the machine poor performance or crash. I suffer it with some intel's switches before. I heard cisco and other vendor suggest not to use too many vlan trunk in their machine. is it true? -- >At 1:46 PM + 7/23/02, Kent Yu wrote: >>I cannot see any problem using vlan from your access layer up to the >>aggregation point, as long as the PE has enough capacity to hold the routes. >>If necessary, you can always use several PEs in one location to spread out >>your aggregation, you may want to use some lower end routers/switches, kind >>of like a distribution layer leading to the core devices in your POPs. >> >>HTH >>Kent > >Agreed, if the access devices have only one or two uplinks and don't >need the rerouting ability of IP. > >> >> >>""bbfaye"" wrote in message >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>> we are handling a case of a MAN project now. >>> We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means >>we >>> have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access >>nodes(expensive...). >>> Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the >>> aggressive >>> nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the >>> disadvantage. >>> Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls >vpn >>in >>> the man? >>> thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49511&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
At 04:12 PM 7/23/2002 +, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >At 1:46 PM + 7/23/02, Peter van Oene wrote: > >Before going down this road, I tend to wonder what drives people this > >direction. Exactly what is it about poorly scaling, flat networks that > >turn people on? > >My impression is that it is an unholy alliance of traditional telcos >and traditional vendors to traditional telcos, coupled with >FUD/cluelessness with certain enterprises who think L2 is >automatically configurable and infinitely scalable. > >I have seen estimates from telcos that without massive retraining, >they think they can only support 10% L3, 90% L2 with their existing >provisioning and support personnel. They obviously haven't configured L2VPN recently :) IP looks pretty good comparatively from a complexity standpoint. > >Last I checked, IP did a pretty decent job of providing a > >robust means of interconnection between remote sites. To me, its LANE all > >over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and try > >and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your > >control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache > >from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find someone > >who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. > > > >As far as building MPLS based bridging networks I would suggest that in > >many cases, the technology is pretty fresh at this point. The ppvpn group > >in the ietf and the vendor community (same thing?) are still considering a > >number of candidate solutions. However, at this point you should be able > >to find vendors capable of providing point to point topologies with various > >degrees of scaling properties. As well, I have heard that Riverstone may > >have a point to multipoint (ie capable of replicating one packet across a > >series of point to point LSP's) solution, but I have not researched it. In > >the future, a true VPLS solution should shake out that provides multi > >vendor compatible, 802.1d like bridging (ie mac learning with some type of > >listen/learn/forward STP like loop prevention). Again though, I tend to > >ask myself, is this really what we want to do with our nifty IP networks. > > > >I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks > >with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported > >by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. > > > >Most access gear at this point supports some type of MPLS however. What > >type of gear are you using currently that makes it prohibitively expensive > >to upgrade at this point? > > > > > > > > > > > >At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +, bbfaye wrote: > >>we are handling a case of a MAN project now. > >>We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means >we > >>have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). > >>Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the > >>aggressive > >>nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the > >>disadvantage. > >>Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn > >in > >>the man? > >>thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49459&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
At 1:46 PM + 7/23/02, Peter van Oene wrote: >Before going down this road, I tend to wonder what drives people this >direction. Exactly what is it about poorly scaling, flat networks that >turn people on? My impression is that it is an unholy alliance of traditional telcos and traditional vendors to traditional telcos, coupled with FUD/cluelessness with certain enterprises who think L2 is automatically configurable and infinitely scalable. I have seen estimates from telcos that without massive retraining, they think they can only support 10% L3, 90% L2 with their existing provisioning and support personnel. >Last I checked, IP did a pretty decent job of providing a >robust means of interconnection between remote sites. To me, its LANE all >over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and try >and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your >control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache >from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find someone >who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. > >As far as building MPLS based bridging networks I would suggest that in >many cases, the technology is pretty fresh at this point. The ppvpn group >in the ietf and the vendor community (same thing?) are still considering a >number of candidate solutions. However, at this point you should be able >to find vendors capable of providing point to point topologies with various >degrees of scaling properties. As well, I have heard that Riverstone may >have a point to multipoint (ie capable of replicating one packet across a >series of point to point LSP's) solution, but I have not researched it. In >the future, a true VPLS solution should shake out that provides multi >vendor compatible, 802.1d like bridging (ie mac learning with some type of >listen/learn/forward STP like loop prevention). Again though, I tend to >ask myself, is this really what we want to do with our nifty IP networks. > >I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks >with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported >by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. > >Most access gear at this point supports some type of MPLS however. What >type of gear are you using currently that makes it prohibitively expensive >to upgrade at this point? > > > > > >At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +, bbfaye wrote: >>we are handling a case of a MAN project now. >>We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means we >>have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). >>Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the >>aggressive >>nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the >>disadvantage. >>Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn >in >>the man? >>thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49443&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
At 1:46 PM + 7/23/02, Kent Yu wrote: >I cannot see any problem using vlan from your access layer up to the >aggregation point, as long as the PE has enough capacity to hold the routes. >If necessary, you can always use several PEs in one location to spread out >your aggregation, you may want to use some lower end routers/switches, kind >of like a distribution layer leading to the core devices in your POPs. > >HTH >Kent Agreed, if the access devices have only one or two uplinks and don't need the rerouting ability of IP. > > >""bbfaye"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> we are handling a case of a MAN project now. >> We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means >we >> have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access >nodes(expensive...). >> Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the >> aggressive >> nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the >> disadvantage. >> Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn >in >> the man? >> thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49445&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
Before going down this road, I tend to wonder what drives people this direction. Exactly what is it about poorly scaling, flat networks that turn people on? Last I checked, IP did a pretty decent job of providing a robust means of interconnection between remote sites. To me, its LANE all over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and try and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find someone who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. As far as building MPLS based bridging networks I would suggest that in many cases, the technology is pretty fresh at this point. The ppvpn group in the ietf and the vendor community (same thing?) are still considering a number of candidate solutions. However, at this point you should be able to find vendors capable of providing point to point topologies with various degrees of scaling properties. As well, I have heard that Riverstone may have a point to multipoint (ie capable of replicating one packet across a series of point to point LSP's) solution, but I have not researched it. In the future, a true VPLS solution should shake out that provides multi vendor compatible, 802.1d like bridging (ie mac learning with some type of listen/learn/forward STP like loop prevention). Again though, I tend to ask myself, is this really what we want to do with our nifty IP networks. I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. Most access gear at this point supports some type of MPLS however. What type of gear are you using currently that makes it prohibitively expensive to upgrade at this point? At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +, bbfaye wrote: >we are handling a case of a MAN project now. >We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means we >have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). >Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the >aggressive >nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the >disadvantage. >Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn in >the man? >thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49430&t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
