[c-nsp] Traffic Engineering considers bad ?

[Jared Mauch]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:58:49AM +0200, Sami Joseph wrote:
> I was just trying to clear something i heard.

	I suspect some or all of it is FUD.

> 
> 1) Traffic Engineering (in general) is not advised by Cisco or other
> vendors.

	There are a number of providers using TE.  There are even
commercial vendors that will help you optimize your TE, eg:
cariden MATE.  I would make sure you're collecting all your mpls
statistics and have a good automated way of interacting with them.

> 2) Deutsh telecom removed it because it was complex and problematic

	You'd have to ask them

> 3) Labels corruption and mess up

	With an feature, there are and could be a universe of bugs
to explore.  I think the better question is 'Why do I need MPLS and/or TE'.

	where is the real value to me?

	MPLS-TE is a tool that can be used to solve some problems.  If
you don't have any of these problems, it can create troubles for you if
you don't know how to manage it properly.  An example would be that if
you enable ECMP across 2 paths, set up a TE tunnel over it, "why is my
one circuit all full and the other empty?".  Well, the lsp picks the first
path (with addl caveats).  You may need two TE tunnels to do the balancing
at one side of the network.  Maybe you don't need TE on that path?

	- Jared

> Is there any truth underneath or thats all just FUD.
> 
> On 3/6/07, Bruce Pinsky <bep at whack.org > wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Sami Joseph wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > My cisco supplier company advises that i dont use Traffic engineering on
> > my
> > > network because its never stable and it is not mature yet and label
> > > allocation is bad and in general, all vendors doesnt recommend it?
> > >
> > > I came to the right people to ask, what is true of the above, any known
> > > facts, any article, document?
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like FUD to me.  But the real question is what are you trying to
> > accomplish and why do you think TE is the correct solution?
> >
> > - --
> > =========
> > bep
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFF7aXdE1XcgMgrtyYRAkx4AJ0dPSHlxB/HIwj1wCWzknCd3yHSngCfbyaO
> > wES8hwsJL6Tk1GMhUdXiMR8=
> > =fLHK
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.