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, Poriru
ROTECTED]
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
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
""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
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 a
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]
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 PROTECT
ke 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 questi
>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.
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 opera
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:
>
""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.
""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 yo
> >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-
""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 dis
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
>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.
>Obvi
>""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 poin
""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 car
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
""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
> >>
""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 m
>""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
>gener
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&q
>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
> > >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 generali
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 N
> >
>
> 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
""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 specific
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'
>
> >
> > 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
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 tha
""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.
> >Fo
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 di
34 matches
Mail list logo
