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