The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: RE: Guaranteed QoS using MPLS?
> What you are > currently unable > to do with MPLS VPN which you can do with MPLS-TE is reserve > bandwidth Probably it is not necessary to say it, but for this discussion...every one is taking into account that currently, MPLS-TE (at least the implementations of the main vendors like Cisco, Juniper, Riverstone, ...) does not actually "reserve" any bandwidth, it is something that just happens in the control plane, not in the forwarding plane, right? Javier. ----- Mensaje Original ----- Remitente: Ruyter Hill <Hill.Ruyter@carrier1.com> Fecha: Lunes, Enero 28, 2002 4:01 pm Asunto: 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 > thosetunnels, 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 > tunnelbased 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 > mechanismsand 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 > ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|