From: Joe Rinehart (jjrinehart@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 21:12:21 GMT-3
Yes, I realize that but I was pointing out how the architecture works in
general, most notably the IGP vs. BGP functionality. Even if you do not
create MBGP VPNs the routing behavior is the same, with the IGP knowing ONLY
core routes and BGP just at the edges. Both protocols run separately with
no real interaction...
And as far as the AT&T network goes, yes there is a large Cisco component,
particularly on the edges, but Avici routers are operating at the core. The
architecture is independent of the actual platforms....
Joe Rinehart
CCIE #14256, CCNP, CCDP
Data Network Consultant
AT&T Pacific Northwest Enterprise Markets
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dumoulin" <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>
To: "'Joe Rinehart'" <jjrinehart@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:12 PM
Subject: RE : Cisco MPLS
> But AT&T are using Cisco routers I believe. Also please note that I am not
> talking about MPVPN but just about the way BGP network destinations are
> label switched,
>
> Regards
>
> -- Richard
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joe Rinehart [mailto:jjrinehart@hotmail.com]
> Envoyi : samedi 10 septembre 2005 01:07
> @ : Richard Dumoulin; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Objet : Re: Cisco MPLS
>
> Anyone feel free to jump in if I am way off base here...
>
> It's pretty much just a function of how the routing is set up...I created
a
> mini-MPLS network on my lab rack and really was surprised to see how the
> mechanics all work, especially as I tried to mimic how we have it set up
at
> AT&T. The feature you are referring to is sometimes called a route-free
> core. The label switched core itself doesn't have any knowledge of edge
(or
> MPLS VPN) routes at all, they are clueless of anything outside the
backbone
> itself. Usually an IGP like OSPF or ISIS is run between the P nodes in
the
> core and includes the PE devices too. I had one router get all buggy
> because of short memory so I verified just using static routing across the
> simulated backbone and that worked too. The core just uses IGP and
internal
> routes and does the label switching from PE to PE.
>
> The magic is at the PE, it's pretty much doing all the heavy lifting. The
> PE runs BGP at the edge only, peering with the CE (using eBGP) and other
> PE's (using iBGP), and it's also responsible for creating the MPLS VPN's
> using Route Distinguishers and Multiprotocol BGP. The core doesnt know,
> doesnt care and doesnt play with BGP or the VPN's, it just pushes
traffic...
>
> The same would apply to Internet routes, as the BGP on the edge/PE routers
> would know all of it, advertise routes, and such, but once passed to the
> core P routers it would be label switched....
>
> It really is cool fascinating stuff.....
>
> Joe Rinehart
> CCIE #14256, CCNP, CCDP
> Data Network Consultant
> AT&T Pacific Northwest Enterprise Markets
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Dumoulin" <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:03 PM
> Subject: Cisco MPLS
>
>
> > There is a feature in MPLS that I find powerful and it is the
possibility
> of
> > building an Internet backbone with 160000 routes present only in the PEs
> > routing table. I was wondering if this was only a Cisco feature or do
the
> Ps
> > of other vendors also support this like Juniper for example?
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > -- Richard
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > 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.info
> >
> > 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.
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3