The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2003-Nov> msg00066



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

RE: IP VPN over MPLS backbone

  • From: Doug Legge <Doug.Legge@BerkeleyGroup.co.uk>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:54:07 -0000
  • Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:28:51 -0500
  • To: "'Aleksandar Dzambaski '" <dzambo@mt.net.mk>, "'mpls-ops@mplsrc.com '" <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>

Aleksandar,

Your network sounds very similar to my own (in-fact are you sure you don't
work for Berkeley?).

We are in a similar situation, 23 major regional sites connected via
frame-relay and ISDN2e to a hub site running x2 2Mb bearers (an virtual
interfaces) and x1 30 channel PRI and 100+ ISDN2e small sites.

We are migrating to an MPLS infrastructure integrating G.703, LES and xDSL
circuits.

In the research that I have done MPLS delivery falls into 2 camps:


Hybrid service - The enterprise manages the CE device and the SP manages the
PE and P. In this model the CE is likely to have a static route to the PE
(or may be running rip or OSPF) but is MPLS UNAWARE. It does not take part
in MPLS tag switching and knows nothing of vrf etc.

Managed service  - The Service Provider (SP) manages all devices (CE, PE,
PE) in this model the SP is likely to keep the same model as above, but may
as we have seen in the UK operate iBGP across the network to allow traffic
engineering CE2CE. In all instances that I have seen the CE is still MPLS
UNAWARE.

Another model could be argued where the enterprise manages all devices
(private MPLS network) but I'm unaware of anyone doing this (the capital
outlay would be quite something and one of the main benefits of MPLS is
small capital outlay for major service gains), however it could be stated
that SPs themselves have a private MPLS network which they link there own
remote offices and they may make their CE MPLS aware, over to the SPs for
the answer on that one.

I'm away from the office at the moment so have attached links to three
papers that I have read and if you want I will send you the configs from the
test lab (CE1 & CE2 > PE1 > P1 > P2 > PE2 > CE3 & CE4 & CE5) CE1 & CE3 are
in vrf1 CE2 & CE4 are in vrf2. CE5 vrf3 can import both vrf1 and vrf2
(central service site running VoIP CCM)

Hope this is of some use

Doug

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk436/tk428/technologies_configurati
on_example09186a008009445c.shtml


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk436/tk428/technologies_configurati
on_example09186a00800a6c11.shtml

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/switches/ps298/products_confi
guration_guide_chapter09186a008009b052.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksandar Dzambaski
To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Sent: 19/11/2003 09:51
Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: IP VPN over MPLS backbone

Hi,

I currently have a Frame Relay network with central site and 22 remote
locations, coupled with ISDN backup. The system works fine, but now our
telecom provider has new service.



They have MPLS backbone, and they are offering IP VPN connections as a
replacement for our current network.



I spent several days in research for this new opportunity and I see that
obviously this is a better offer. We will start a test period in which
we
are supposed to connect several locations just to compare with the Frame
Relay.



Now here are the questions:

1. I have problem with understanding the configuration of the customer
(mine) router. I have read many papers about configuring the PE and P
routers in the MPLS backbone, and the PE interface to the CE router, but
I
haven't found a paper describing the configuration of the CE interface
to
the PE router, nor I have found an example of it. Can someone point me
or
explain the configuration of the IP VPN interface. Are there any
examples of
it or comparison with the Frame Relay configuration?



2. The current situation is with ISDN backup lines which are configured
with
static routes and Frame Relay end-to-end keepalive parameters. This
eliminates using dynamic routing protocols (ex. RIP, OSPF...). Regarding
the
previous question and this statement, are there any possibilities of
keeping
the static routing or should we definitely turn to a dynamic routing
protocol.



Best regards,

Aleksandar



-------
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