[c-nsp] VPN/QOS Questions Was MPLS - 6500's

Tue May 6 11:11:55 EDT 2008

Cisco has some mechanisms for setting the DSCP on the L2TPv3 frames  
based on the incoming CoS bits.  I'm not sure about widespread model  
support but I imagine it's supported on the VXR.

More info here:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/qos/configuration/guide/tnl_mrkg_l2tpv3_tnls.html

Phil

On May 5, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:

> Oops.. overlooked it in the software advisor. According to Cisco.com  
> l2tpv3
> is supported even in the 1811's...
>
> So, what QOS levels can I invoke with l2tpv3 if the packets are  
> tunneled?
> In other words, is there a way to mark voice packets inside of l2tpv3
> tunnels across a core network to another location?
>
> Here's a scenario on where the MPLS thoughts came from:
>
> Location A - Cisco 1811, two subnets inbound to the router  
> internally - one
> voice and one data.
>
> Location B - Cisco 1811, two subnets inbound to the router  
> internally - one
> voice and one data.
>
> The data portions need to be joined via VPN (currently using GRE/ 
> IpSec).
> Each site has public Internet access via NAT.  The voice portions  
> need to be
> joined on a VPN basis also.  I want the voice portions to have dscp  
> bits set
> (could mark via NBAR?) so that on the transport side we can  
> prioritize.
> Each site has 5 Mb/s of layer3 connectivity so congestion will  
> definitely
> occur at times.
>
> In between each site is some 6500's (hence my questions on MPLS with  
> 6500's)
> running Sup2/MSFC2 functioning as distribution routers.  To do this  
> properly
> I keep coming back to an MPLS solution that we don't have today...   
> our
> other option is to convert a bunch of gear and make each site a  
> trunked
> layer2 connection but rather avoid that if possible...
>
> Open to ideas... thanks folks..
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Bedard [mailto:philxor at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:16 PM
> To: Paul Stewart
> Cc: 'Justin M. Streiner'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS - 6500's
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1415 - Release Date:  
> 5/5/2008
> 6:01 AM
>
>