[c-nsp] VRF question

[dave bernardi]

So for those service providers running a (native?) MPLS backbone you'd likely carry your global internet routing table in a VRF where you could also set EXP bits to distinguish it from other services you provide, VoIP, L2/L3 VPN, etc., across the backbone. From what I can tell most IP features would still be available by the IP edge functionality of your router (7600 platform) even if it is also the PE, correct? Any thoughts on what features would be lost in this case as opposed to a separate PE and stand alone dedicated IP router for Internet service?

Depending on what IP features are lost it might be a better approach to run a hybrid MPLS backbone where you might leave Internet traffic as IP switched (untagged) and label switch L2/L3-VPNs, for example.

How many of you are running a native MPLS backbone and was the major determining factor VPN, QoS, or other?

-DaveB

At 09:38 AM 10/8/2004 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
>You can pretty much bet any feature that relies on
>identifying traffic by ip address/port information
>will not work.
>
>That is in a tag->tag path.
>
>If you get to the point where it's ip2tag or tag2ip then
>some of the ip features can work depending on how and
>where they are applied.
>
>If you want QOS that's why the precedence is copied to
>the EXP bits at the place in the network where it's
>ip2tag.  You can then build your QOS policies matching
>on EXP bits rather than trying to match on the precedence
>bits of the underlying ip header.
>
>Rodney
>
>
>On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 09:10:43AM +1000, Phil Pierotti wrote:
> > "once you do MPLS you can't do a lot of other features that are done on IP
> > packets"
> > 
> > Anyone care to *briefly* outline these? (features excluded by using MPLS)
> > Or quote an URL which does?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Phil Pierotti                         UnitedIP
> >                                       Unit 16 , 4a Foundry Road
> > Network Operations Manager            Seven Hills NSW 2147
> >                                       http://www.unitedip.net.au/
> > 
> > 
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> > >[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rodney Dunn
> > >Sent: Friday, 8 October 2004 3:24 AM
> > >To: jcvaraillon at dolnet.gr
> > >Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VRF question
> > >
> > >You can do MPLS without VRF's.
> > >
> > >You really don't buy yourself anything doing MPLS in your 
> > >scenario.  It just adds another level of complexity to the mix 
> > >so I wouldn't do it.
> > >
> > >You would do MPLS when you need something like:
> > >VPN's
> > >To take BGP out of the core
> > >TE
> > >
> > >You don't have either of those so you probably shouldn't mess with it.
> > >
> > >The raw switching improvement isn't that much at all anyway 
> > >and once you do MPLS you can't do a lot of other features that 
> > >are done on IP packets so you lose some functionality.
> > >
> > >Rodney
> > >
> > >
> > >On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 07:35:43PM +0300, jcvaraillon at dolnet.gr wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Hi,
> > >> 
> > >> I have a backbone of four routers:
> > >> 
> > >>         2 Border routers connected to two differnet ISPs,
> > >>         2 internal routers in the same LAN as the border routers.
> > >>         Each internal router is a route-reflector client of 
> > >one border router.
> > >>         There is an iBGP between the border router.
> > >>         OSPF is running amon the four routers, on that LAN.
> > >> 
> > >> Would it be an improvment to set-up a VRF between each routers?
> > >> Would this allow me to use the fast switching method of MPLS ?
> > >> 
> > >> Any comment/suggestion are welcom.
> > >> 
> > >> Thank you,
> > >> 
> > >> Christophe
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> > >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> > >===============================================================
> > >=========
> > >   This message has been scanned for spam & viruses by Mail Sleuth.
> > >   To report SPAM forward the message to:    spam at mailsleuth.com.au
> > >   Mail Sleuth                                www.mailsleuth.com.au
> > >===============================================================
> > >=========
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/