The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Mat.e.Hobbis@alcatel.co.uk]

Are we still doing this one...

As long as the NIC allows extended payloads - to cope with Ethernet + Label
- then there is no issue. Almost any NIC should do. If you look at the
Linux MPLS implementation all stacks and enhanced drivers (e.g. to write
correct ethertype) will be part of the package.

Read the package docs...






                                                                                                                                              
                      Puddinhead Wilson                                                                                                       
                      <puddinghead_wilson007@y        To:       Mat E HOBBIS/GB/ALCATEL@ALCATEL                                               
                      ahoo.co.uk>                     cc:       "' \"Bjørn_Mork'\"" <bjorn@mork.no>, "Bell, John" <john.bell@thus.net>,       
                                                       mpls-ops@mplsrc.com, "'Puddinhead Wilson'" <puddinghead_wilson007@yahoo.co.uk>,        
                      20/08/2004 13:26                 "McCallum, Robert" <robert.mccallum@thus.net>                                          
                                                      Subject:  RE: [MPLS-OPS]: MPLS aware NICs                                               
                                                                                                                                              




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





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