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?
Well, I am sorry if I am wrong but, in my understanding of DS-TE, the difference with TE is that you may have more than one bandwitdh pools, let us say one for each Diff serv class, but that does not mean any per- LSP traffic scheduling (I have never heard that it is supported in the current implementation, but probably I may be wrong), which IMHO is necessary to have guaranteed QoS. I think "soft" QoS with the right priorization for real time traffic (and limitation using for example DS- TE) may be enough for almost all the applications over IP, but on the other hand, I would not say that MPLS can "guarantee" QoS today. Javier. ----- Mensaje Original ----- Remitente: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com> Fecha: Lunes, Enero 28, 2002 7:46 pm Asunto: Re: Guaranteed QoS using MPLS? > > I hope they do. > > I am also sure you know the difference between the control plane > reservation done for TE and actual scheduler's queue reservation > done in > DS-TE - right :) ? I had a feeling that some of this discussion moves > around DS-TE as well. > > R. > > > fraanro wrote: > > > > > 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 > ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml |
|