The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>]

> > > It is my understanding that labels are assigned on a per-flow
> per-customer
> > > basis. This means that if Customer A has two streams of traffic with the
> > > same priority and the same next-hop destination, those two streams
> become a
> > > single flow and will share a single label for that hop. The same type of
> > > traffic from Customer B will have a different label over the same
> next-hop.
> > > In this way the two customers' traffic flows will be kept separate even
> > > though they have the same priority.
> > >
> >
> > This is certainly possible, but not the way TE was intended to be
> > used, nor how at least one implementation out there behaves.  Think of
> > a TE LSP as a unidirectional traffic trunk between two nodes in the
> > provider's network.  Customer A and Customer B traffic between the
> > same two nodes takes the same trunk.  Seperation is done by DiffServ
> > and EXP bits.
> 
> 
> is this cisco specific?
> does cisco support "TED" and RSVP-TE EROs based on TED parameters?
> 

We support RSVP-TE ERO.  We support a TE DB based on OSPF and/or ISIS
extensions.  

> > > >2. What's the behavior of RSVP, when it's configured to constrain &
> > > >reserved a 20 MB? Will it maintain 20MB LSP permanently regardless the
> > > >traffic usage (no tear down)?
> > >
> >
> > Yes.  But in at least our implementation, the reservation is
> > control-plane only.  The idea is to build a reservation for something
> > like 95th percentile of your traffic between two points.
> 
> 
> Can you please elaborate?

Rather than constantly changing a reservation in increments of (say)
1k all the time based on actual traffic flow, build a TE LSP that
reserves some sort of mean or mean-like amount of bandwidth between
two points.  This is not a vendor-specific thing, it is a network
design thing.



eric

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml