Javier-
Thanx. Its always nice to see a quick reply :-) I got some
questions...please see them inline
> > 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.
[Bala S Venkata]--->
So what happens when I create an LSP using the "label-switched-path"
statement under the "[edit protocols mpls]" hierarchy in a Juniper device ?
I can specify a bandwidth for the LSP (in addition to my primpary and
secondary named paths) correct? What is this bandwidth ?
And I assume that when you say "police at the entry point" you are talking
about schemes like rate limiting or access control ? How can this guarantee
a bandwidth for an LSP ?
>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.
[Bala S Venkata]--->
I assume you are talking about the "from" and "to" statements in the "[edit
protocols mpls label-switched-path lsp-path-name]" hierarchy, is that right
?
> 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!).
[Bala S Venkata]--->
Again referring to JunOS specifically, this next hop statement should go in
my "policy-satement <policyname> term <term> then" hierarchy, correct ?
> 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.
[Bala S Venkata]--->
How else do you think a Service Provider can offer "differentiated" VPN ?
Looke like he/she can use the LSP for that since LSPs seem to have that
level of differentiation (in terms of say bandwidth..)
Thanx for your time !
bala
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT