[c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?

[Masood Ahmad Shah]

I don't want to start another thread for MPLS TE along with best vendor but
it's an important topic in mobile carrier's networks.
 
There are currently two label distribution protocols that Cisco/Juniper
support for Traffic Engineering: RSVP, CR-LDP.

Although the two protocols provide a similar level of service, the way they
operate is different, and the detailed function they offer is also not
consistent. Network Engineer's need clear information to help them decide
which protocol to implement in a Traffic Engineered MPLS network. Each
protocol has its champions and detractors, and the specifications are still
under development. Recognizing that the choice of label distribution
protocol is crucial for the success of device manufacturers and network
providers, making very difficult to identify which protocol is the right one
to use in a particular environment.

Traffic Engineering is never ending topic, but some comment/thoughts can
make it more interesting..

Regards,
Masood Ahmad Shah
BLOG: http://www.weblogs.com.pk/jahil


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Masood Ahmad Shah
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 10:12 PM
To: 'Saku Ytti'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?


In case of Cisco, how about point to multipoint LSP's & multipoint to point
LSP's? If you need scalable VPLS you may find JUNOS (juniper) better than
IOS. Although both vendors are supporting LDP/RSVP-TE, but they have some
layer 8-9 :) issues. One (Cisco) is supporting LDP while juniper is working
extensively on RSVP-TE(BGP).


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:04 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?

On (2008-08-03 18:18 +0500), Masood Ahmad Shah wrote:

> MPLS VPN, TE and QoS, If all you need in one BOX than better you go for
> Juniper M Series. Juniper M10i or M120/320.

M10i is quite aging platform, displaying varying amount of issues. I'd
say MX and M120 would be better picks.
 One particular example comes to mind is inability to pop explicit-null
and decreasing IP TTL at the same time, making egress PE disappear from
traceroute, when using core-hiding and explicit-null. (PFC3B also
suffers from this, but PFC3C with SXH should not, haven't tested though).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 1:41 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?
> 
> On (2008-08-02 20:20 +0000), Felix Nkansah wrote:
> 
> > I am working on an MPLS proposal for a mobile carrier (with 2mil+
> > customers).
> > 
> > I need to decide on what routers to use as PE and P for their backhaul
> > between 5 sites.
> > 
> > I am torn between proposing the Cisco ASR 1000 OR the Cisco 7600 series
as
> > PE/P.
> > 
> > Please let me know what your expert opinion is on this matter. They
> require
> > MPLS VPN, TE, and QoS.
> 
> You should find out very carefully if or not you can live with LAN
> card limitations. Without knowing specific of your QoS requirements,
> it's very likely that you are terminating customers to subinterfaces,
> effectively requiring HQoS which LAN cards do not do.
>  Other limitations that pop in my mind are, no vlan local significance,
> no IPv6/uRPF (and chassis wide strict or loose in IPv4), no IPv6 CoPP,
> no TOS byte transparency, either you lose up-to /128 lookup or L4 lookups
> in IPv6.
> 
> If you find out that you can't live with LAN cards, the main attraction
> of 7600/6500 goes away and you have much more options to choose from.
> ASR1k, MX, M, GSR, CRS.
>  But if you are aware of all the catches with LAN interfaces and can
> live/workaround them, it's very good value to your money. However, in my
> book they suite much better LSR/P role than LER/PE role.
> 
> -- 
>   ++ytti
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
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/