The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: Fwd: FW: How to Differentiate Traffic ?
> I can enlighten myself > and see if our VR architecture is completely wrong. I doubt that an individual that can't even read my signature can be enlighten at all :-) ... > VRF and > virtual router are 2 completely different things from software > implementations to functionalities. Depends who implements them. R. PS: So that you know I was never in TAC. > Colby Duong wrote: > > This is funny. Anyone cares if some cisco tech support guy get > upset? And he dares to call people clueless? Stop acting like you > are god on this list just because you know a few CLIs. VRF and > virtual router are 2 completely different things from software > implementations to functionalities. The only similarity is yes they > both use separate FIBs. Please consult your software architect first > before making such misleading statement and refrain from speaking for > Juniper. I think they are too smart to be making such claim. > > This topic has been discussed before but lowly me would love to hear > from any Cisco software designer (not TAC) on this list Cisco's > justification for saying VRF = VR so hopefully I can enlighten myself > and see if our VR architecture is completely wrong. > > -----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. > > > ###################################################################################################### > > ------- > The MPLS-OPS Mailing List > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml > Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|