The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2002-Mar> msg00108



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

Re: Multiple VPNs on a CE?

  • From: Vasile <vasile@rogers.com>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:30:16 -0500
  • CC: Susanne Witschel <su@nmc-m.dtag.de>, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:22:23 -0500
  • To: raszuk@cisco.com
  • X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.42.185.46] using ID <vasile@rogers.com> at Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:30:12 -0500

Just noticed Susanne's statement :
"The customers AS would be different from Your providers AS, of course." and I
couldn't see a reason for this.
Vasile


Robert Raszuk wrote:

> And who told you that this is not possible ? Notice that if you use
> IGP/static + LDP between PE-CE there is no restriction on the AS
> numbering. But for this particular thread CSC is not so usefull (as I
> thought originally) and just simple single vpnv4 session in Inter-AS
> should meet the requirements fine. Notice that the AS number of the
> single box sub-carrier is more or less irrelevant.
>
> R.
>
> > Vasile wrote:
> >
> > In a Carrier supporting Carrier Mpls enviroment why is not possible that the
> > backbone carrier and the customer carrier use the same As number ?
> > Cheers,
> > Vasile
> >
> > Susanne Witschel wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure I understand this. Usually You use frame relay with
> > > subinterfaces to be able to use multiple vrfs over the same physical
> > > connection. This puts the routes for each vrf in a distinct routing table on
> > > the PE as well as on the CE. There's one vrf and therefore one routing table
> > > per logical interface.
> > >
> > > If this is starting to scale badly, You could put up carriers carrier
> > > service, having the CEs speak MPBGP with each other. In this case, there's
> > > only one vrf on each PE (for the customers whole site), and the vrfs of the
> > > different VPNs are configured on the CPE only. All the "VPN-in-the-VPN"
> > > routes are kept in the vrfs only on the CE. This would be Your alternative
> > > way. The customers AS would be different from Your providers AS, of course.
> > > You need to configure Your CEs for MPLS and to take care that Your PE
> > > doesn't touch the BGP next hop for routes learned from the CEs, as it would
> > > rewrite labels otherwise. You'd have one outer label for transport through
> > > the core to the CE and one inner label - learnt via the CE BGP session - for
> > > the customers VPN.
> > >
> > > So, if I got this right, You can have multiple routing tables on CE and PE
> > > with subinterfaces; and one  routing table containing BGP next hops only on
> > > the PE and multiple routing tables on the CE with carriers carrier and no
> > > subinterfaces.
> > >
> > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if there are vendors for which this
> > > doesn't hold.
> > >
> > > Kind regards, --suwi
> > >
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: Joe Lin [mailto:jlin@doradosoftware.com]
> > > > Gesendet am: Montag, 11. März 2002 20:54
> > > > An: 'Dave O'Meara'; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> > > > Betreff: RE: Multiple VPNs on a CE?
> > > >
> > > > Sub-interfaces would put everything in the same routing table.
> > > >
> > > > CE with Multi-VRF would put everything in different routing tables
> > > > (VRF).
> > > >
> > > > The results would not be the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dave O'Meara [mailto:dave.omeara@eircom.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:02 AM
> > > > To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> > > > Subject: Multiple VPNs on a CE?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > We have a requirement to offer multiple MPLS VPNs on multiple ethernet
> > > > interfaces on a CE router so that the customer can physically firewall
> > > > between the VPNs. We currently use Multi-VRF CE functionality along with
> > > > multiple frame-relay sub-interfaces on the Serial interface, and this
> > > > works
> > > > OK.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to replicate this functionality without using
> > > > sub-interfaces?
> > > > I am thinking of Inter-AS MPLS. Could the CE effectively become a
> > > > 'remote
> > > > PE' with no IGP/LDP association?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > -------
> > > > 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
>
> -------
> 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