From: Joe Rinehart (jjrinehart@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 11:50:25 GMT-3
Ah it can be, but that's better than being a Farquad oe fairly godmother of
a network. Doh!
Joe Rinehart
CCIE #14256, CCNP, CCDP
Data Network Consultant
AT&T Pacific Northwest Enterprise Markets
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> To: "'Joe Rinehart'" <jjrinehart@hotmail.com>; "'Richard Dumoulin'"
> <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Cisco MPLS
>
>
> > So therefore MPLS is an ogre of a network? ;)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Joe
> > Rinehart
> > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:28 PM
> > To: swm@emanon.com; 'Richard Dumoulin'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Cisco MPLS
> >
> > Exactly, I learned this point because one of my routers was having
memory
> > problems (a PE running MPLS, OSPF and MBGP) so I killed OSPF on the PE
> > routers and tried to use default routes into the P core. It didnt work,
> and
> > after thinking a bit I realized it was because the P core was not seeing
> the
> > routes. I tried doing the whole core and PE's with static routes and it
> > worked. It's amazing what you pick up when you start peeling back the
> > layers. Like ogres, MPLS has layers :)
> >
> > Joe Rinehart
> > CCIE #14256, CCNP, CCDP
> > Data Network Consultant
> > AT&T Pacific Northwest Enterprise Markets
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> > To: "'Richard Dumoulin'" <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>; "'Joe Rinehart'"
> > <jjrinehart@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 7:35 PM
> > Subject: RE: Cisco MPLS
> >
> >
> > > That's not the point of the 2547 stuff. There are two labels. One is
> an
> > > inner label that is used by the PE's. The PE devices need to be MBGP
> > peers
> > > and have all that exciting information going on. The P routers only
> need
> > to
> > > know how to get from one PE to the other PE via whatever routing
> protocol
> > > you choose to use (ISIS, OSPF, etc.).
> > >
> > > You can build an LSP table as long as you know where to go. So they
> just
> > > need to know where to go. Typical deployments on the Juniper P
routers
> > will
> > > involve MPLS and RSVP families, but they'll remain pleasantly ignorant
> of
> > > all the MBGP stuff.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> > > Richard Dumoulin
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:14 PM
> > > To: 'swm@emanon.com'; 'Joe Rinehart'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE : Cisco MPLS
> > >
> > > Take the example of an ISP using an MPLS backbone. Will Juniper P
> routers
> > > need all the routes to create the LSP table? We all know that this is
> not
> > > the case with Cisco. What about the others?
> > >
> > > -- Richard
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com] Envoyi : dimanche 11
septembre
> > > 2005 04:05 @ : Richard Dumoulin; 'Joe Rinehart';
ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Objet : RE: Cisco MPLS
> > >
> > > The LSP "routing table" is a different list all together. You CAN
have
> > BGP
> > > routes present, but it's certainly not necessary to have your customer
> > > routes present.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> > > Richard Dumoulin
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 9:19 PM
> > > To: 'Joe Rinehart'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE : Cisco MPLS
> > >
> > > I heard that on a Juniper based MPLS network, the BGP networks needed
to
> > be
> > > present on the P routing tables. Would be nice if anyone could confirm
> or
> > > not by having a look at the routing table...
> > >
> > > -- Richard
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Joe Rinehart [mailto:jjrinehart@hotmail.com] Envoyi : dimanche 11
> > > septembre 2005 02:12 @ : Richard Dumoulin; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Objet
> :
> > > Re: Cisco MPLS
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > > >
********************************************************************
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3