[c-nsp] MPLS - 6500's

[Phil Bedard]

You may want to look at L2TPv3 unless you really need TE features.   
It's supported on more platforms and supported in non 'T' train  
releases.

Phil


On May 5, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:

> Thanks...
>
> So if someone wanted to build a low traffic volume, "bare bones" MPLS
> network could they not use:
>
> Cisco 7206VXR-NPE-G1 for P router
> Cisco 3825 or 2821 for PE router
>
> This would give you every MPLS feature but VPLS specifically or am I  
> way
> off?  Why I bring this up is that in this particular case there is  
> still the
> Sup2/MSFC2 6500's in the middle but they could remain in the middle  
> just as
> layer2 devices connecting the above devices together at layer3 as MPLS
> devices right?
>
> This particular project *could* use some of the TE and QOS features  
> in MPLS
> but total traffic might be 10Mb/s on a peak hence why upgrading the  
> 6500's
> would not make sense but adding some gear "around" them might work  
> just
> fine...??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin M.  
> Streiner
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 4:40 PM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS - 6500's
>
> On Mon, 5 May 2008, Paul Stewart wrote:
>
>> With a 6500 Catalyst, regular line cards, and Sup720-3BXL - what  
>> can you
> NOT
>> do with MPLS on these chassis?  Is it "just" VPLS that requires an  
>> OSM
> card
>> or a FlexWAN card for example?
>>
>> We are working on a project where MPLS may come into play .. VPLS  
>> would be
> a
>> nice option to throw in but not 100% necessary.  Today, these are  
>> 6500's
>> with Sup2/MSFC2 which I'm told are pretty much useless for anything  
>> MPLS
>> oriented....
>
> I'm not sure about MPLS limitations in the Sup2/MSFC2, but it wouldn't
> surprise me if they're pretty major since those engines are much more
> software driven and have substantially lower forwarding capabilities  
> than
> the Sup720/3BXL.  The 3BXL does MPLS just fine, but I'm not running  
> it in
> a 'true' service provider environment.  We run MPLS using LDP to
> distribute labels to some non-Cisco gear and terminate Martini  
> tunnels and
> that seems to work pretty cleanly, although the hair-pinning needed to
> land a Martini tunnel is somewhat strange...
>
> jms
> _______________________________________________
> 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/