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=54507&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 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]
""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]
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]
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]
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, 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]
>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]
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]
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]
""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]
""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]
> >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]
""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]
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]
>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]
>""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]
""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]
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]
""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]
""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 >;-> > 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]
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]
>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]
> > >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]
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'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]
""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]
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]
> > > > > 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]
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]
""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 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
