The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2002-Dec> msg00174



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

Fwd: Using RSVP-Te in MPLS/BGP VPN

  • From: Roger Clark Williams <rogerw@nordlink.com>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:02:20 -0500
  • Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:44:44 -0500
  • To: MPLS-ops Mailing List <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • X-Sender: rogerw@together.net@207.69.200.148

Mehwish, just for clarification, it is my understanding that the MPLS/BGP VPN connection is, effectively, between the MP-BGP sessions running on two PE routers (a simplification for sure), while a TE tunnel can be anywhere within the MPLS cloud. The two are unrelated in labelling protocol (RSVP vs BGP). However, the labelling idea is the same when compared with other tunneling methods. If I followed the thread properly the question was whether a given VPN can be made to run through a specific tunnel perhaps in the middle of the cloud. The issue here is whether a specific VPN's traffic can be tagged in such a way as to run through a given tunnel no matter where that tunnel may be in the network, while another VPN's traffic would go elsewhere. If this is so, said another way you are wondering whether an explicit route can be defined for a specific VPN or for types of traffic within that VPN. Am I right so far? The standard logic of BGP labelling allows for the underlying IGP to set the lowest cost path between the two BGP speakers. Again, by standard design, the cost of the overall path can be manipulated by the network admin by manipulating the path cost per hop. A tunnel can play a part here, as by manipulation the cost of the single-hop tunnel can be less than the true cost of the included hops. However there was nothing in the standard use that would allow traffic types to be differentiated other than Access Lists. These require a look at the IP header, and getting at that would defeat the ideas behind labelling. Again, without complicating the issue too much, I think the question we need to answer is this: Is there a way to set an explicit path across the entire network for the traffic of a particular VPN? The explicit path could be through a tunnel or not; that is independent of the question. I hope this clarifies - and I hope I got the question right. I have been traveling and may have missed some things. Please ignore this if it is not relevant. Roger Williams > Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:23:36 -0500 > X-Authentication-Warning: host.secure4-hosting.net: mplsrc12 set sender to > mpls-ops-request@mplsrc.com using -f > Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:01:21 -0800 (PST) > From: Mehwish Ahmed > To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com > Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: Using RSVP-Te in MPLS/BGP VPN > Resent-From: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/5037 > X-Loop: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com > Resent-Sender: mpls-ops-request@mplsrc.com > > aoa > > I just wanted to know can we use RSVP-TE while using MPLS/BGP VPN > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml