The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Puddinhead Wilson <puddinghead_wilson007@yahoo.co.uk>]

Most convincing :)
I really should have taken my management studies more
seriously :)

 --- "Bell, John" <john.bell@thus.net> wrote: 
> Why not indeed? Except I'd terminate the MPLS tunnel
> on a router that serves
> the server farm, and pass the IP packets alone to
> the server. Why push the
> load onto a server that has its own jobs to do?
> You'll go far in management
> with that attitude, my lad! ;-)And besides most
> server high-availability
> software is designed for IP alone. I'm assuming, of
> course, that this server
> farm has a secure connection to its own LAN router.
> And the label is only of
> use when there are switching points ahead. Once
> you're onto the last leg of
> the trip, there's no need for the label. I still
> think it makes most sense
> to keep MPLS in the routing domain. And leave the
> poor, maxed-out server
> serving!
> 
> Cheers, 
> 	John
> 
> PS But if you really want to do it anyway, why
> wouldnt a standard Ethernet
> NIC handle it? So long as your frame aint too big,
> it shouldnt care!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjørn Mork [mailto:bjorn@mork.no]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 12:33
> To: Bell, John
> Cc: McCallum, Robert; 'Puddinhead Wilson';
> mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: MPLS aware NICs
> 
> 
> "Bell, John" <john.bell@thus.net> writes:
> 
> > 	None that I'm aware of. As Steinar says, you'd
> have to run a routing
> > protocol on your workstation/server for it to make
> any sense. Equally,
> > making an NIC MPLS-aware means writing an MPLS
> stack in software, so I
> > suppose  some guys in a Uni lab may write their
> own MPLS-aware NIC stack
> as
> > a project, and run "routed" on a Linux box, just
> to understand whats
> > happening. But there will never be a commercial
> reason to do it, as you
> need
> > to turn your server into a software router. As we
> all know, this is a
> crappy
> > idea when there are perfectly good (i.e a million
> times better) hardware
> > routers around :-)
> 
> Let's say you want to do policy routing on your
> edge, redirecting some
> packets to one or more servers located at a central
> server farm.  To
> do this you need tunnels from the edge routers to
> these servers.  Why
> not use MPLS tunnels?  The servers will have to
> terminate the tunnels
> no matter what protocol is used.  But they don't
> have to do any
> forwarding, and they don't really have to
> participate in the routing
> exchange.
> 
> I'd say that popping a label is much preferred to
> unwrapping ipsec or
> gre or whatever, even if you don't qualify as a
> router ;-)
> 
> 
> Bjørn
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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