The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Christopher Lewis <chrlewis@cisco.com>]

I don't think L2TPv3 will be of use to you yet, it is not in any shipping
product. L2TPv2 as you know does PPP, v3 adds Frame relay, HDLC, ATM etc.
The pre-standards implementation that is available today (12.0(19)S) is
called UTI. UTI and L2TPv3 are almost identical as regards encapsulation
though.

What you suggest with L2TP and tunneling the PPP session makes most sense
I think for this case.

I regularly post this link for people to look at examples for this sort
of thing
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/vpn/solution/rampls/ramplspr/intro.htm

Chris

At 06:59 AM 3/15/2002, Vorley, Peter wrote:
>  
> I think I understand.  The 3Com RAS doesn't support MPLS-VPN, but you
> need to get the PPP session terminated somewhere that does?
>  
> In this case, to the best of my knowledge, I would use L2TP and tunnel
> the PPP session into the PE.
>  
> It's Robert Razsuk's config, so I'm not really comfortable posting this.
>  
> Robert reads and replies on this list, so hopefully Robert can re-post it
> for you.
>  
> If you look through the archives you'll find it.
>  
> Please be aware that I haven't tested this though, but gives you an idea.
>  
> I saw that Cisco recently announced something L2TPv3, so you might
> want to have a look and see if this is of any use...but haven't had chance
> to look at it yet, so I don't know.  Does anyone else know?
>  
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/Tech/unified_vpn/
>  
> Thanks.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rakesh [mailto:rakesh.menon@tataisp.com]
> > Sent: 15 March 2002 12:39
> > To: Vorley, Peter; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> > Subject: Re: isdn fallback 
> >
> > Hi,
> >  
> > Thx Peter. Basically i wanted to know incase we give the isdn fallback, rather than on the PE,   on another n/w equipment like 3com RAS  then is it possible to go ahead with the VPN . In this scenario the customer will be dialling onto the PRI no. in the RAS. In this case how do we go abt VPN on fallback. 
> >  
> > Rgds
> > rakesh
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: Vorley, Peter 
> > > To: 'Rakesh' ; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com 
> > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:50 PM
> > > Subject: RE: isdn fallback 
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >  
> > > Yes, I've tested it and it worked okay.
> > >  
> > > The only problem is that you need to do some spoofing to get around the delay of the
> > > route being installed in the VRF (bgp scan-time is one way, but not ideal, playing with
> > > a floating static and a dummy loopback is a better way)...Robert R posted a sample
> > > config to this forum for getting around this a little while ago.
> > >  
> > > Could you please enlighten me why you think it might be different if dialing into the same
> > > PE, versus a different one....perhaps I've missed something?
> > >  
> > > Cheers. 
> > >  
> > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rakesh [mailto:rakesh.menon@tataisp.com]
> > > Sent: 15 March 2002 06:27
> > > To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> > > Subject: isdn fallback 
> > >
> > > > Hi ,
> > > >  
> > > > Has anybody tested an ISDN fallback to the PE for a VPN customer leased line on the same PE. Does the mpls vpn work on the isdn fallback . 
> > > >  
> > > > Thx&Rgds
> > > > Rakesh <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> > > >