[c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

[Arie Vayner (avayner)]

True. You cannot map different classes on the same EoMPLS PW to
different TE paths, as EoMPLS is a single point to point L2 link...
You can still have multiple EoMPLS PW's, each using an alternate path
using different TE tunnels, or use TE FRR...

I am not aware of any implementation that can do DS-TE with L2VPN... It
is more for IP based services.

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 17:24
To: Michael Robson
Cc: Cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

>> For TE (and MPLS in general) check:
>>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con
>> figuration/guide/pfc3mpls.html
>>
>
> These documents mention no reference to TE for EoMPLS: is it safe to
assume
> therefore that the 650 doesn't support tE for EoMPLS?

No, it's not. One thing that you might give it a try is using a
specific loopback on both routers for the EoMPLS tunnel, announce
these new loopbacks on the IGP, and then using TE for the traffic to
those loopbacks. I was planning to test it to see if it works but
ended up in a new job before that...

> Am I also correct in saying that, since outgoing policies are not
support on
> 6500s for LAN-based cards, there is no real way to give shape or
restrict
> EoMPLS pseudowire bandwidths by EXP/TC field?

Class-based tunnel-selection doesn't support AToM if I recall it well,
but you probably can use a 1:1 pseudowire:tunnel ratio to have a more
granular control.



Rubens
_______________________________________________
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/