[f-nsp] VPLS/VLL Redundancy

[Lazuardi Nasution]

Hi Tomasz,

What happen if I attach some differents VLAN on the same VPLS cloud ?
Let assume that each node is connected to the same VPLS Router via the
same Aggregation Switch with following scripts.

On the VPLS Router:
vpls CompanyA 10000
   vlan 100
      tag ethernet 1/1 -> this port is connected to Aggregation Switch
   vlan 200
      tag ethernet 1/1 -> this port is connected to Aggregation Switch

On Aggregation Switch:
vlan 100
   untag ethernet 1/1 -> this port is connected to Node A1 of Company A
   tag ethernet 1/24 -> this port is connected to VPLS Router
vlan 200
   untag ethernet 1/2 -> this port is connected to Node A2 of Company A
   tag ethernet 1/24 -> this port is connected to VPLS Router

If we can use that script with no problem, I think we can use VLAN
Based Rate Limit since each node of same subscriber/company can be
mapped to different VLAN.

Best regards,

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Tomasz Szewczyk <tomeks at man.poznan.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think now I got your point. In my opinion placing the RLs depends on what
> is the service definition for the customer. I think the simplest solution is
> to put RL on access interface, but in case of VPLS-like services
> (many-to-many) it is not so easy to predict traffic amount in the core. For
> example if customer wants to connect 5 sites with 100Mbps, I would put input
> rate-limit and output rate-shaping (both 100Mbps) for each access interface.
> RL should limit traffic entering the core and priority/DSCP based rate
> shaping avoid (or manage) congestion on output interface.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Tomek
>
> Lazuardi Nasution pisze:
>>
>> Hi Tomasz,
>>
>> What if there are some another CEs of the same subscriber/company
>> which are connected to the same aggregation switch ? I think I must
>> assign them into the same VLAN for making them to be the same member
>> of VPLS cloud ? If so, the traffic from a CE to the another CE will
>> not traverse to VPLS Router. In that case, VLAN based RL on VPLS
>> Router side cannot be used.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Szewczyk <tomeks at man.poznan.pl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>