see inline
^ ^
==============ooo====(.)v(.)====ooo=====
Javier Antich Romaguera
Network Consultant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TELINDUS
Pza. Ciudad de Viena, 6-2º
28040 Madrid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
javier.antich@telindus.es
tel: +34 91 456 00 08
fax: +34 91 536 10 74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about our products and services,
please visit our website http://www.telindus.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full connectivity & mobility
==================ooo0===0ooo========
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Bala Subrahmanyam Venkata [SMTP:bsubrahm@doradosoftware.com]
> Enviado el: viernes 22 de junio de 2001 17:23
> Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Asunto: [j-nsp] Differentiating MPLS VPN
>
> This question was actually posted by me even in the MPLS OPs list. I
> wanted
> to know Juniper's stand on this.
>
> Suppose if I have an MPLS core network with 4 PEs (PE1, PE2, PE3 and PE4).
> Say I also have two LSPs between PE1 and PE2 - one with a bigger bandwidth
> and the other one with a less bw. If I group these two PEs (PE1 and PE2)
> in
> a 2547bis VPN, can I steer the VPN traffic into one of those two LSPs I
> have
> between the PEs ? If so how ?
>
[Javier Antich]
First of all I would say that there are no "real" bandwidth
reservations for LSPs unless you police at the entry point. But let us
suppose that we have, between PE1 and PE2 two different LSPs, one default,
probably generated by LDP and other one, probably created by RSVP-TE. I am
not sure if what I am saying works, because I have not tested it, but I
would try to do:
Create the RSVP-TE Traffic Engineered LSP between secondary
loopback addresses (no loopback interfaces, as Juniper supports only one) in
PE1 and PE2.
In PE1 create a policy statement in the import and export
commands in the vrf configuration so that for routes with the appropriate
route-targets and whose next-hop is PE2 (from next-hop PE2) change the
next-hop to the secondary loopback address of PE2 (set next-hop ...). This
way traffic belonging to that VPN and going to PE2 would use the
traffic-engineered path (I hope so!).
However, probably this does not scale too much. Well, maybe even
does not work (can someone test it?).
> Also what happens if PE3 and PE4 now decide to be part of that VPN ? Do I
> need to do the same between all the PEs if I want to steer the VPN traffic
> between them into one of the LSPs between them ??
>
[Javier Antich]
And what if there are lots of VPNs?? Probably it is not a good idea
to have per-VPN LSPs between PEs.
> TIA
>
> bala
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT