The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Karl Garcia <Karl.Garcia@cosinecom.com>]

Title: RE: Fwd: FW: How to Differentiate Traffic ?

Robert,

My response was not an ad.  I did not name any specific device.  In fact, there
are several devices that can handle this functionality.  Examples include
Crescent, Allegro, CoSine, and any company who has virtual routers and MPLS.
I was merely pointing out that there are alternatives to the convoluted
network that you were proposing.

In particular, I was responding to Kishor's request:

> I would like to know about the other alternatives for providing this kind of internet access.
> I would appreciate if you can send me some Links or Docs that can help.

This list is not only about Cisco's MPLS implementation (which you so freely talk about),
but it is supposed to be an exchange of ideas and know-how about current MPLS
implementations.  I could say that it is just a Cisco ad when you propose that the CPE
has to have all the intelligence.

You seem to indicate that Cisco's and juniper's vrfs are real routers.  By
the strictest definition of the word they are, but common usage has routers
performing all sorts of IP services.  My only point was to educate the list that there are
routers (in the full meaning of the word) which can do MPLS as well as a full
range of IP services.

We are still waiting for the Cisco vrf to perform a simple service like NAT.  Until
then, it will remain "just a entry into the MPLS core".

_______
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:raszuk@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:52 AM
To: Karl Garcia
Cc: 'ccasey@bigfoot.com'; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: How to Differentiate Traffic ?

Karl,

Thx for Cosine's senior marketing ad here, but vrf in both cisco &
juniper implementations is a real router with it's own RIB & FIB as
well. I really get a bit upset when clueless people talk about vrf like
this: "rather than just a entry into the MPLS core".

R.

> Karl Garcia wrote:
>
> Just to throw another perspective into the fray, there is equipment
> available
> today that will allow the decision about when to leave the private
> network to
> be made at the provider's site.  Essentially this turns the VRF into a
> real
> router, rather than just a entry into the MPLS core.  You would
> probably
> need some kind of firewall at the egress point too.  All this
> functionality
> can be provided by one device.
>
> Designed this way, the CPE could be anything from a full router to
> just a DSL line.
> No provider management necessary at all.  And this would eliminate the
>
> need for special GRE or VLAN configuration (and overhead !!) too.
>
> ___________
> Karl
>
> Karl Garcia
> Sr. Mrkt. Engr.
> CoSine Communications, Inc.
> www.cosinecom.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris C., [mailto:theguber@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:41 AM
> To: raszuk@cisco.com
> Cc: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: How to Differentiate Traffic ?
>
> Robert,
>
> Let me clarify a little. This is for a service Providers network. Let
> me
> make some comments below:
>
> > >
> > > 1. You have a CPE that does not support this? Like a DSL Bridge as
> an
> > > example.
> >
> >I am surprise that you would connect DSL bridge directly into the PE.
>
> >Usually it goes to NAS then via some L2 encapsulation (for example
> l2tp)
> >to PEs.
> >
>
> Chris>> Need cheap CPE devices. The above was just one example. DSL
> bridge
> through a DSLAM using a Bridge Group at the PE with DHCP for IP
> Addressing
> so that telecommuters for an enterprise can get the same IP address
> wherther
> they are at work or at home or a SOHO office. IE: The DHCP server for
> that
> particular user is the actual enterprises Server
>
> > > 2. You do not have a CPE. EG: Ethernet port off a L2 LAN Switch in
> a MTU
> > > model.
> >
> >Well most ethernet switches support VLANs. That's all what you need.
> >Also linux supports both GRE and vlans so you can easily use this as
> >solution as well.
>
> Chris>> Does not seem practical. Are you saying put a LINUX WS at each
> site?
> That eliminates the cost advantage of using Ethernet then doesn't it??
> Also
> in the VLAN scenario would that not mean the clients Internet traffic
> could
> route back to the VPN path? (Note: If the client did nothing about it
> and
> was outsourcing the service to us the SP)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> -------
> The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
> Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
> ######################################################################################################
> This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is
> intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified
> above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this communication,
> you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this email. If
> you have received this communication in error, please immediately
> notify the sender by reply email, delete the communication and destroy
> all copies.
> ######################################################################################################
###################################################################################################### This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this email. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. ######################################################################################################