The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2004-Aug> msg00132



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

RE: MPLS aware NICs

  • From: Puddinhead Wilson <puddinghead_wilson007@yahoo.co.uk>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:26:44 +0100 (BST)
  • Cc: "' \"Bjørn_Mork'\"" <bjorn@mork.no>, "Bell, John" <john.bell@thus.net>, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com, "'Puddinhead Wilson'" <puddinghead_wilson007@yahoo.co.uk>, "McCallum, Robert" <robert.mccallum@thus.net>
  • Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:11:43 -0400
  • To: Mat.e.Hobbis@alcatel.co.uk

Thanks,

I think so does freebsd

I need the NIC.


 --- Mat.e.Hobbis@alcatel.co.uk wrote: 
> 
> Seems like you are asking the wrong question. As
> hinted earlier in this
> chain, MPLS sits above the NIC level, i.e the same
> MPLS stack should work
> on all IF, so you need an OS that supports MPLS -
> take a look at Linux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                     
>                                                     
>                                     
>                       Puddinhead Wilson             
>                                                     
>                                     
>                       <puddinghead_wilson007@y      
>  To:       "McCallum, Robert"
> <robert.mccallum@thus.net>, "'Bjørn_Mork'"          
>       
>                       ahoo.co.uk>                   
>   <bjorn@mork.no>, "Bell, John" <john.bell@thus.net>
>                                     
>                                                     
>  cc:       "'Puddinhead Wilson'"
> <puddinghead_wilson007@yahoo.co.uk>,                
>    
>                       20/08/2004 13:02              
>   mpls-ops@mplsrc.com                               
>                                     
>                                                     
>  Subject:  RE: [MPLS-OPS]: MPLS aware NICs          
>                                     
>                                                     
>                                                     
>                                     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fine,
> 
> but if someone asked you where you could find them ,
> would you be nice enough to tell them :)?
> 
> -thanks
> 
>  --- "McCallum, Robert" <robert.mccallum@thus.net>
> wrote:
> > Thinks about what this end device would need to do
> > to be able to do that
> > properly.
> >
> > Have a sizable routing table.
> > Hold a full LIB for the whole network.
> > RSVP signalling.
> >
> > Are we going to bring in FRR as well?
> >
> > All of the above can be done oddly enough on
> devices
> > called routers.  Leave
> > the end device to be noddy and let the magic get
> > done on boxes that it
> > should be done on.
> >
> > I still don't see any benefit from an mpls nic.
> >
> > Robert McCallum
> > CCIE #8757 R&S
> > 01415663448
> > 07818002241
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bjørn Mork [mailto:bjorn@mork.no]
> > > Sent: 20 August 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________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