[c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

[Arie Vayner (avayner)]

Phil,

Seems like this is also possible on Cisco platforms - I was just not
aware of that.
Specifically for 6500 and SXH it is mentioned here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps6970/ps6017
/prod_bulletin0900aecd806afd81.html

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Bedard [mailto:philxor at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 19:26
To: Arie Vayner (avayner)
Cc: Rubens Kuhl; Michael Robson; Cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS


On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:

> 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.
> 

Juniper and Alcatel can map L2VPN service frames to different LSPs based
on ingress markings.     

Phil 



> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/