The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Sebastien.Spas@alcatel.be]

Hi,

Tunnel Builder Pro (using a patented algorithm from Parc Technologies
actually) is quite a good solution against the "high" administrative cost of
the 1:N (by-pass LSP) approach.

If you're looking for products in this area, Alcatel has also a tool, 5620
TSOM (working on cisco, juniper & alcatel boxes) which does primary paths
optimization to load balance the network (initial idea behind traffic
engineering, implemented with Alcatel patented algorithm), and also optimize
& provision FRR backup paths (for both 1:N & 1:1 methods) with shared risk
link group support.

I also heard about other tools in that area like Wandl, Zvolve or Opnet. I
think they can help designing these FRR backup paths, but are only planning
tools, means they don't discover neither provision directly the network,
just producing reports & diagrams.

kr,
seb.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gideon Agar [mailto:gideon.agar@parc-technologies.com]
Sent: lundi 12 mai 2003 17:52
To: 'Sebastien.Spas@alcatel.be '; 'Rudisill, Amelia ';
'mpls-ops@mplsrc.com '
Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: Traffic Engineering


Cisco does actually have a tool, Tunnel Builder Pro, which calculates and
provisions the optimal FRR backup tunnels necessary to provide
bandwidth/service protection.

-Gideon

-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastien.Spas@alcatel.be
To: Rudisill, Amelia; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Sent: 12/05/03 08:56
Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: Traffic Engineering

Hi Amelia,

What I saw the most was RSVP-TE directly on the P routers, most of the
time
with explicit LSPs.
It looks like fast reroute is not highly implemented yet, but it's
becoming
mandatory with DiffServ MPLS for voice/video LSPs.
Concerning the protection methods,

1:N (fast reroute by-pass LSP) is the most used, maybe because it's the
only
one supported by cisco.
Administative cost is higher than 1:1 method (you must manually create
and
maintain all the by-pass LSPs), but bandwidth cost is lower since it's
sharing protection. Scalability is better of course.
Assumption is made for this approach than only 1 network element (node
or
link) can be down at one time. It's quite realistic. This mechanism can
also
be linked with SRLG approach.

1:1 (fast reroute detour LSP) is not used much. Administrative cost is
very
low (simply need to set a fast-reroute tag on your LSP object).
Bandwidth
cost is very higher (because no sharing of backup capaciy), and
scalability
is lower (for an LSP going through 5 nodes, 4 additional LSPs will be
created, signalled and reserved). You can still do bandwidth sharing by
specifying the detour LSP capacity to be zero.

kr,
sebastien.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rudisill, Amelia [mailto:rudisila@ncr.disa.mil]
Sent: vendredi 9 mai 2003 19:49
To: 'mpls-ops@mplsrc.com'
Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: Traffic Engineering


Hello,

Anyone running MPLS-TE on their network and what capacity?  If so, are
you
running RSVP-TE over LDP or just RSVP-TE on the P routers?  Are most
providers implementing Fast Reroute? Cisco only implements 1:N method.
Are
most Service Providers implementing 1:N or 1:1? What is the primary
protection method implemented, Link or node protection?  Can someone
provide
some advantageous and disadvantageous of each?

Thanks,

Amelia

-------
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