[f-nsp] VPLS/VLL Redundancy

[Tomasz Szewczyk]

Hi,
I think you can use vlan baser RL but in this case I would suggest to 
run STP on access switches and for some VPLS instances (it is possible 
on 3.8 or 3.9 code on XMR as Topology Group). This would give you better 
control on limits applied for the customer, because you can setup 
primary and secondary active port. I mean something like on attached 
picture. You can apply the same RL on ports A and B. The port B should 
be blocked by STP, hence all customer traffic will be limited by policer 
on port A. In case of failure port B becomes active and all customer 
traffic will be limited by policer applied to port B.
But this relies on STP - so in my opinion it is the last thing you 
should do ;-) Additional problem is L2 VLAN for STP control. The main 
disadvantage is that VPLS can not be used for STP control, so you have 
to connect XMRs via L2 (in our network we don't have such connections).

Regards

Tomek

Lazuardi Nasution pisze:
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> The configuration is like attached picture. Each aggregation switch is
> connected to two VPLS Routers as a ring. I use two  VPLS Router for
> redundancy. Each subscriber device will be connected to one or two
> aggregation switches side. So, I think the port based rate limitting
> must be done on aggregation switches. I have no idea if I could use
> VLAN based rate limitting on the VPLS router side since there are some
> subsribers which have more than one node connected to the same
> aggregation switch.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Tomasz Szewczyk <tomeks at man.poznan.pl> wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>>     
>>> 1. Anyone has experience with the VPLS/VLL redundancy where each
>>> subscriber node is connected to diffrent PE Router (NetIron MLX/XMR) ?
>>> I need some configuration brief about that. The whitepapers are very
>>> helpful too.
>>>
>>>       
>> We used transparent BPDU flooding over VPLS instance, so it was possible to
>> run STP on L2 devices connected to XMRs (bot not on XMRs)
>> It is possible to enable it on interface:
>> no vpls-bpdu-block
>> However I used this only in case when L2 devices were under our
>> administration. Running this option on customer's interface is a little bit
>> risky because in case of L2 loop created by customer, the control plane of
>> XMRs can be affected. However there is cpu-protection option, but I think it
>> will not protect you against "loop" MAC learning.
>>     
>>> 2. Is it possible to map different VLANs into the same VPLS cloud ?
>>>
>>>       
>> Yes - you just need to type:
>> vlan xxx
>> tag/untag e8/1
>> vlan yyy
>> tag/untag e8/2
>>
>> Or you just setup different VLANs on remote VPLS endpoints. It works :-)
>>     
>>> 3. I need some suggestion of FastIron Edge products which have port
>>> based incoming and outgoing rate limitting with 64kbps granularity. I
>>> will combine it on my design with NetIron MLX/XMR for making VPLS/VLL
>>> provider.
>>>
>>>       
>> Unfortunately I don't have a lot of experiences with FastIron series, but
>> last times I successfully tested rate-shaping for VPLS based on DSCP in
>> customer's IP packets. It works fine too :-)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tomek
>>
>>
>>     
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>


-- 
Tomasz Szewczyk
Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center
e-mail: tomeks at man.poznan.pl
tel: +48 61 8582020
fax: +48 61 8525954

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: VPLSred.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22167 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/foundry-nsp/attachments/20081017/4f6b4aba/attachment.png>