The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] RE: Guaranteed QoS using MPLS?
Hi Ok I will clarify >you mentioned that MPLS TE tunnels are not very >scalable. Would it be possible to be more specific and point out which >aspects of the TE tunnels are not scaling from an SP's point of view? I am not saying MPLS-TE is not scalable as such but that it would not be scalable to have a separate TE tunnel for each of your classes of service To have to constantly dimension the available bandwidth on each of those tunnels, as traffic patterns change, would be a management headache to say the least. >The second point I am asking is about the need for VPNs. The original >question was about guaranteed QOS in MPLS - you seem to be suggesting that >it is of limited value, I will clarify the point I was making. If you are to build an MPLS-VPN standard COS applies and in fact you can to a certain extent map DSCP AF and DP into the EXP field of the MPLS shim header. What you are currently unable to do with MPLS VPN which you can do with MPLS-TE is reserve bandwidth What I was saying would be nice to see is the ability to map the DSCP AF and DP to the shim header on the MPLS VPN label then in turn map that EXP marking to a bandwidth guaranteed tunnel in my MPLS-TE core I hope this clarifies the issue Kind Regards Hill -----Original Message----- From: Dekany, Steven [mailto:steven.dekany@marconi.com] Sent: 28 January 2002 15:07 To: Ruyter Hill; 'mpls-ops@mplsrc.com' Subject: RE: Guaranteed QoS using MPLS? HI Hill, I read your comments with interest, since you obviously bring into the picture a service provider background and experience. I would like to follow up on two points from your email. The first one is, that you mentioned that MPLS TE tunnels are not very scalable. Would it be possible to be more specific and point out which aspects of the TE tunnels are not scaling from an SP's point of view? Where would you like to see changes for the better? Ease of provisioning, hierarchy? The second point I am asking is about the need for VPNs. The original question was about guaranteed QOS in MPLS - you seem to be suggesting that it is of limited value, because it does not work with MPLS VPNs. Are you suggesting that the majority of MPLS QOS services today offered by SPs, are being offered via VPNs? Thanks in advance for any further thoughts, Best Regards, Steven -----Original Message----- From: Ruyter Hill [mailto:Hill.Ruyter@carrier1.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:17 AM To: 'mpls-ops@mplsrc.com' Subject: FW: Guaranteed QoS using MPLS? Hi I would like to comment here briefly I had an interest in a similar functionality and found in discussion with Robert (thanks for the info Rob) That although you can guarantee bandwidth and pass policed normal IP traffic on a MPLS-TE tunnel (not hugely scalable) You cannot at present pass already policed and marked packets which are MPLS labelled within an MPLS VPN over a specific bandwidth guaranteed tunnel based on EXP field so if someone wanted to create an MPLS-VPN say for GRX services and guarantee SIP across it you would have to rely on normal queuing mechanisms and be sure to put enough fat in the network in order to guarantee bandwidth is available Lets hope that soon we have the ability to do MPLS-VPN over MPLS-TE Regards Hill -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Lewis [mailto:chrlewis@cisco.com] Sent: 28 January 2002 02:57 To: saqibj@margallacomm.com Cc: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com Subject: Re: Guaranteed QoS using MPLS? With the caveat that the amount of traffic the application will send is known prior to the network being setup to service that level of traffic, yes. Try http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/Tech/mpls/mpls_techdoc.shtml This link shows how this can be done on Cisco networks by combining diff serv QoS and MPLS traffic engineering capabilities. This combination used to be called Guaranteed bandwidth services, but was changed to diff-serv aware traffic engineering. For this to work properly, a policer at ingress is necessary for the traffic eningeered tunnels to really function as you want. Chris At 06:36 PM 1/27/2002, Saqib Jang wrote: >Could MPLS be used to provide "virtual circuits" >for IP applications having specific QoS requirements. >For example, could MPLS be used to create guaratee QoS >across an IP core for an application that requires >no more that .1% packet loss? Do existing MPLS routers >have such capabilities or would this require implementing >a new MPLS standard? > >Also, how would an MPLS LER classify traffic that uses >dynamic port numbers (e.g. SIP)? > >Saqib > >Margalla Communications, Inc. >3301 El Camino Real, Suite 220 >Atherton, CA 94027 >(650) 298-8462 (W) >(650) 274 8745 (C) >(650) 368-8198 (F) >saqibj@margallacomm.com >http://www.margallacomm.com > >------- >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 This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Do not copy this e-mail or any attachment, use the contents for any purposes, or disclose the contents to any other person: to do so could be a breach of confidence. ------- 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 |
|