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 ?
Colby, Robert is one of our most senior software engineers. An additional quote from Dan Tappan one of our Distinguished engineers "a VRF is a low functionality virtual router" as Robert says, differences are down to implementation, if you are positioning VRFs and VRs as inherently different, you are entering the realms of pure marketing. That should not be the focus of this list IMHO. Chris At 12:20 AM 11/30/2001, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > 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 ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|