Scott -- 100% agreed. Like I said, I do not believe this is a "right or wrong" answer. We can all argue both sides but what is the point? Some people seem to like to respond to these sorts of things just for the sake of arguing. (Shrug)
Thanks for your valuable input!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Regards,
Joe Astorino - CCIE #24347
Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert
Mailto: jastorino_at_ipexpert.com
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
eFax: +1.810.454.0130
IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand, Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Morris <swm_at_emanon.com>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 08:47:55
To: Kambiz Agahian<kagahian_at_ccbootcamp.com>
Cc: Joe Astorino<jastorino_at_ipexpert.com>; Jack Router<pan.router_at_gmail.com>; <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Subject: Re: MPLS CE, PE definition
Managed CE's bring a whole different picture in. It all boils down to what the SP finds easier (e.g. what translates to less help calls by the customers and less technician time to work on/fix/tweak/etc). It's a $$ game.
When this all started, by the way, it was (and still may be depending on the specific equipment/IOS used on the SP edge) a routing-process # issue. In most devices, there's a maximum of 32 routing processes that can be used. While we'd love to see the world run OSPF, unfortunately, each instance is a routing process for the IOS. I believe the new S-trains (SRD/SRE) and XR versions eliminate this problem and make it more total-memory rather than process number....
But BGP was the simple common denominator that had to be run anyway, and offered INTRA-process separation of tables.
So, sorry to rain on things here (as it appears to be a fun contest of pulling pants down that I'm not particularly interested in) but an SP is concerned about "reliable" only as much as it translates to lower operations/support cost. Only the larger customers (commanding that "do this or I'll pull my $$ to another provider) really get to command the tweaks and entertaining features. "Normal" MPLS VPN customers have to do what they are told, or get handed a managed CE router with the phrase "tough patooties".
The funny thing is that as good network engineers, we can MAKE things work just about any way till Sunday. But when it comes to making a replicatable process to roll out en-masse, that logic doesn't hold very long.
Just my six cents... (I figured I've collected a couple from global SPs over the years, so I may as well share them here!)
But in design methodology, the funny thing is that there aren't really "right" answers. There are "what works for me in this particular situation" answers. So you can both share in being correct (and please (insert favorite deity here) keep your pants pulled all the way up!).
Scott
Kambiz Agahian wrote: Joe, It's actually less flexible and more resource intensive ;-) but it does offer a couple of major advantages. Different carriers use different CE-PE routing protocols and if you interview them you will hear a bunch of different reasons. In the US, you see the exact same thing. This is somehow like the famous "OSPF or IS-IS" question...both have their own fans. But what sort of flexibility do you ever need to have between 2 hops? If you talk to those who are big BGP fans as a CE-PE they'd mostly talk about the "built-in redistribution" feature (absolutely true) but at the cost of slower convergence. I've heard some other reasons like "we only need to hire BGP guys then!" etc. But what sort of convergence? As an MPLS SP the only thing that I care about is a reliable, easy to set up, configure and tshoot link as my PE-CE but as a customer probably you're seeking some more vital features like "what if my primary link goes down?", "what if I want to swit!
ch over to a SP2 if SP1 is down?", "what if the IP SLA for jitter keeps complaining and I prefer to route through SP2?" etc. well, BGP does do the job but not necessarily in the grace period of time mandated by your critical applications like Call managers and public servers. Does SP1 care? Probably they don't, especially in the markets that you see some sort of natural monopoly. But I know some service providers working on this now. In theory, there are heaps of different options to improve this experience but at the end of the day you as a customer have to deal with their sluggish BGP behavior. Juniper is actively working on this, and Cisco does have some features...but anyway our SP's are far behind; we're talking about a massive hardware/software upgrade especially if the feature needs to be configured on both ends. Cheers, -------------------------- Kambiz Agahian CCIE (R&S), CCSI, WAASSE, RSSSE Technical Instructor CCBOOTCAMP - Cisco Learning Solutions Partner (CLSP) !
Email: kagahian_at_ccbootcamp.com <mailto:kagahian_at_ccbootcamp.com!
> Toll F
ree: 877-654-2243 International: +1-702-968-5100 Skype: skype:ccbootcamp?call FAX: +1-702-446-8012 YES! We take Cisco Learning Credits! Training And Remote Racks: http://www.ccbootcamp.com -----Original Message----- From: nobody@groupstudy.com <mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Joe Astorino Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 6:14 PM To: Jack Router Cc: Kambiz Agahian; ccielab@groupstudy.com <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com> Subject: Re: MPLS CE, PE definition PS -- I used to work for a large international company with a global MPLS environment. It was much like what you are describing -- managed CE routers that ran BGP to the PE routers. We had only read access on the managed CE routers. Unfortunately, all of our sites relied basically on static routing (sigh) so on the CE router they basically just advertised those static routes into BGP. Similarly, in your setup the CE router probably learns a bunch of EIGRP routes and they likely just adve!
rtise them into BGP with the network command....or maybe redistribute depending on what exactly they want to accomplish. On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Joe Astorino <jastorino_at_ipexpert.com> <mailto:jastorino_at_ipexpert.com> wrote: BGP makes it easier and more flexible for your provider. Many providers are not going to run an IGP with you at all, and that is what you are seeing. Not having at least read only access to their managed router is kind of ridiculous though...but that is a business decision that likely needs negotiated (AKA Layer 8 problem) : ) On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jack Router <pan.router_at_gmail.com> <mailto:pan.router_at_gmail.com> wrote: Thanks to all for explanations. What is the benefit of running separate CE-PE protocol, instead of running my EIGRP up to the PE ? -----Original Message----- From: Kambiz Agahian [mailto:kagahian_at_ccbootcamp.com] Sent: 1-May-10 19:52 To: Ryan West; Jack Router Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com <mailto:ccielab_at_groupstudy!
.com> Subject: RE: MPLS CE, PE definition Ryan, That box is a !
pure "ma
naged CE". When they say BGP they don't mean MP-BGP, more than likely they just mean BGP (the CE-PE routing protocol). So probably what you see is something like this: EIGRP <-> BGP <-> MP-BGP <-> BGP <-> EIGRP. You can bother them by asking about the best convergence time they can offer with their BGP MPLS peer :-D and then ask them to offer BFD on top of that! HTH -------------------------- Kambiz Agahian CCIE (R&S), CCSI, WAASSE, RSSSE Technical Instructor CCBOOTCAMP - Cisco Learning Solutions Partner (CLSP) Email: kagahian@ccbootcamp.com <mailto:kagahian@ccbootcamp.com> Toll Free: 877-654-2243 International: +1-702-968-5100 Skype: skype:ccbootcamp?call FAX: +1-702-446-8012 YES! We take Cisco Learning Credits! Training And Remote Racks: http://www.ccbootcamp.com -----Original Message----- From: nobody@groupstudy.com <mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Ryan West Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 8:09 AM To: Jack Router Cc: ccielab@groupst!
udy.com <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com> Subject: Re: MPLS CE, PE definition CE implies no locally running MPLS and not neccessarily customer controlled. Sent from handheld. On May 1, 2010, at 10:58 AM, "Jack Router" <pan.router@gmail.com> <mailto:pan.router@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, We have an MPLS service managed by a provider. They have a router on our location and call it a CE. We do not have access to it. When I asked to show me the config they refused because this router runs BGP and contains confidential information. Provider confirmed that this router redistributes our EIGRP into their BGP. By my definition this is a PE even if located in our location, or am I missing something ? Thank, Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net _______________________________________________________________________ Subscription information may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net __________________________!
_____________________________________________ Subscription inf!
ormation
may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net _______________________________________________________________________ Subscription information may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html -- Regards, Joe Astorino - CCIE #24347 Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert Mailto: jastorino@ipexpert.com <mailto:jastorino@ipexpert.com> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat <http://www.ipexpert.com/chat> eFax: +1.810.454.0130 IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand, Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at www.ipexpert.com/communities <http://www.ipexpert.com/communities> and our public website at www.ipexpert.co!
m <http://www.ipexpert.com>
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun May 02 2010 - 12:59:17 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jun 01 2010 - 07:09:52 ART