From: James (james@towardex.com)
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 14:42:20 GMT-3
yes, in fact I do use a lot of gre tunnels at CE's, thank you.
it may not be so processor intensive on a Cisoc 7500 RSP4, until you try pushing
real traffic through it :) seems to work a whole lot better on 7206VXR NPE-G1,
then again NPE-G1 finally makes 7206vxr useful again :)
IMHO, decreased efficiency at the backbone level is not acceptable, and using
layer3-in-layer3 path to route traffic to reach the backbone is pretty makeshift.
-J
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 06:14:37PM +0100, Richard Dumoulin wrote:
> GRE is just an extra header added and I don't think it is so processor
> intensive. Its true that efficiency is reduced but you would be suprised to
> know how much this technology is used in our days of VPN's through the
> Internet,
>
> --Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James [mailto:james@towardex.com]
> Sent: lunes, 28 de junio de 2004 18:56
> To: ccie2be
> Cc: Group Study
> Subject: Re: virtual link vs. gre tunnel
>
>
> I always avoid gre tunnels if at all possible. using gre tunnels will most
> likely transit traffic thru the tunnel, which will hog the router CPU and
> give you poor throughput performance when you start pushing real traffic.
> Yes, it may certainly be doable for lab situation, and it's certainly good
> idea to try it out yourself, but in real-world application, i fail to see
> the usefulness of transiting traffic to the backbone thru a gre tunnel.
> virtual-link sounds better of idea to be used. you can use tunnel to do
> OSPF, and use native path for actual traffic to take, but that kind of
> defeats the purpose of having an IGP in the first place and what a black
> magic mess that will be :) virtual-link will use real native path to push
> the transiting traffic.
>
> my 0.02
>
> -J
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:12:34AM -0400, ccie2be wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > What's the advantage or disadvantage of using a virtual link to
> > connect a discontinuous ospf backbone area vs using a tunnel to do the
> > same thing?
> >
> > Besides the authentications available with a virtual link, are there
> > any other differences?
> >
> > Also, let's assume I wanted to use a tunnel in the following scenario:
> >
> > Area0 --- s0 Rx E0 --- Area xy --- fa0/1 Ry s1 --- Area0
> >
> >
> > Rx and Ry share a common ethernet subnet and each also has a loopback0
> > interface.
> >
> > What should the endpoints of the tunnel be?
> >
> > Should any pair of endpoints work as long as they're consistent on
> > both Rx and Ry? Why yes or no?
> >
> > Does it matter what area the physical or loopback interfaces endpoints
> > of the tunnel are assigned to?
> >
> > I know that when the loopback interfaces are put in area 0 and the ip
> > addr of the tunnel itself is assigned to area 0, this config works.
> > But, I tried other which didn't work but I don't understand why.
> >
> > Could someone explain why that is?
> >
> > TIA, Tim
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> --
> James Jun TowardEX Technologies,
> Inc.
> Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT
> Outsourcing
> james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth
> Services
> cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc:
> www.twdx.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this email in error, or if you are concerned with the content of this email please e-mail to: e-security.support@vanco.co.uk
>
> The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses which could damage your own computer system. While the sender has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachments to this e-mail.
> **********************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
-- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:51 GMT-3