[c-nsp] Traffic Engineering considers bad ?

[Thomas Telkamp]

To elaborate a bit on Phil's note: many people underestimate the
complexity of running an MPLS TE network. A considerable part of my
daily work I spend on helping networks to deal with MPLS TE issues
like keeping setup bandwidth in synch with actual traffic, proper
(traffic) balancing across parallel paths, preventing traffic sloshing
(from one tunnel to another) during failures, load-sharing over
parallel tunnels, etc.

Guy Tal presented a nice overview of all these issues at the last nanog meeting:

  http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/tal.html

And don't forget that TE is not necessarily synonymous with MPLS TE;
there are other TE methods such as (automated) tuning/optimization of
IGP metrics, that are available at a much lower operational
complexity.

Thomas


On 3/14/07, Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com> wrote:
> If it fits a problem you are trying to solve then it is currently a valid
> solution and people are using it.  If you are using it just
> because it's there, it gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself, or tie yourself
> up in complexity.
>
> http://www.cariden.com/technologies/papers/nanog-t-com-
> horneffer.pdf , I believe
> that is the paper from DT where they went with an MPLS core that uses TE based
> upon IGP metrics and LDP versus RSVP-TE.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2007, at 5:58 AM, Sami Joseph wrote:
>
>  I was just trying to clear something i heard.
>
>  1) Traffic Engineering (in general) is not advised by Cisco or other
>  vendors.
>  2) Deutsh telecom removed it because it was complex and problematic
>  3) Labels corruption and mess up
>
>  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/
>
> Phil Bedard
> philxor at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>