The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] RE: IP VPN over MPLS backbone
The Frame/HSPS service would be used between the CE and the PE - usually this is managed by the provider in service offerings and there is no PVC/VPN configurations required by the end user. If high bandwidth is required, IMA or ATM circuits can be installed end-to-end (CE/PE), but again - check to see who manages the CE side equipment. Bill Creighton Network Design Engineer, eVPN AT&T Business Service Delivery WCS 231 Martingale Road, Suite 800 Schaumburg, IL 60173-2008 billcreighton@att.com -----Original Message----- From: Aleksandar Dzambaski [mailto:dzambo@mt.net.mk] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:51 AM To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com 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 |
|