The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2002-Aug> msg00049



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

RE: UTI (Universal Transport Interface)

  • From: Luc De Ghein <ldeghein@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:34:10 +0200 (CEST)
  • Cc: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:31:07 -0400
  • To: rcheung@houston.sns.slb.com
  • X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII


Raymond,

> Chris,
> I can't find any info about "universal VPN" or "L2TPv3" from CCO. I find the

Please have a look at :

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/vpn/unvpnst/2tpv3_ov.htm


> UTI info in 12.0S and 12.0ST IOS releases but it doesn't give much
> background info.
> Does "AToM" stand for "Any Transport over MPLS" or just for ATM ("ATM over

"Any Transport over MPLS"
ATM was the first one we had.

> MPLS")? Is FR also supported? The doc I got from CCO is always based on ATM

Please see at the bottom of the page of URL above.

> only, never mentions a word about other layer2 technologies like FR. The way
> to do ATM and Ethernet are also quite different. EoMPLS doesn't require you
> to configure a tunnel but using keyword "l2ptransport" while AToM does. So

Ths CLI is different for ATMoMPLS vs EoMPLS.

> that's why I'm guessing AToM doesn't apply to any transport though I heard
> this since last year.
> So I guess UTI can generally replace GRE tunnels, what benefits from UTI?

UTI can transport layer2. GRE transports layer3.

Thanks,

Luc

> well, I think all answers depend on the info I'm looking for.
> Appreciate if you can find out some info regarding to UTI or L2TPv3. (like
> what's new in L2TPv3 comparing to v2, etc).
> 
> 
> best regards,
> Yinglam (Raymond) Cheung
> Double CCIE #6961
> Senior Network Engineer
> Schlumberger Network Infrastructure Solutions
> Tel: 1 (713) 513-3285
> Cell:1 (832) 274-0126
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Lewis [mailto:chrlewis@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: rcheung@houston.sns.slb.com
> Cc: MPLS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: UTI (Universal Transport Interface)
> 
> 
> Raymond,
> 
> There should be material on Cisco's website under the title of "universal
> VPNs" which will give the marketing positioning of these two technologies.
> 
> I'll give you the standard Cisco answers to these questions.
> 
> What IETF draft is UTI based on?
> UTI is the Cisco proprietary pre-standard implementation of L2TPv3, as such
> you won't see a draft on it. There are plenty of L2TPv3 drafts for you to
> find on the IETF website. There is very little difference between UTI and
> L2TPv3 though.
> 
> Why Cisco has all similar technologies on the market?
> Good question. Cisco wants to remain the number one supplier of networking
> equipment, as such, it cannot offer just one solution to a problem, as no
> one solution appeals to all customers.
> 
> Does anyone has a list of pros and cons of Cisco's UTI as compared to
> EoMPLS or AToM? What IETF draft is UTI based on?
> Well, first EoMPLS is part of AToM. AToM is about transporting any layer 2
> frame over an MPLS network, as such, ethernet is one of those layer 2
> technologies transported. Next, UTI/L2TPv3 is for transport of layer 2
> frames over IP cores, whereas AToM is there for layer 2 transport over MPLS
> cores. UTI/L2TPv3 provides the same sort of functionality as AToM, but a
> customer does not have to implement MPLS in their network if they chose not
> to upgrade software on their core routers (in either case, upgrading the
> edge routers are of course necessary). UTI/L2TPv3 was created based off
> customer demand for this functionality.
> So there is little point in listing the pros and cons, basically the
> customer will decide which is better depending on whether they want MPLS in
> their core or not. Currently, the majority of customers have opted to
> implement MPLS for this functionality.
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> Chris
> 
> At 07:11 PM 8/1/2002, Yinglam Cheung wrote:
> >Does anyone has a list of pros and cons of Cisco's UTI as compared to
> EoMPLS
> >or AToM? What IETF draft is UTI based on? Why Cisco has all similar
> >technoloies on the market?
> >I tried the example on CCO document and it doesn't work (while using EoMPLS
> >it works). Does UTI have any debug commands (other than "debug tunnel") to
> >troubleshoot?
> >
> >best regards,
> >Yinglam (Raymond) Cheung
> >Double CCIE #6961
> >Senior Network Engineer
> >Schlumberger Network Infrastructure Solutions
> >Tel: 1 (713) 513-3285
> >Cell:1 (832) 274-0126
> >
> >-------
> >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