Ethernet Pseudowire over IP/MPLS

Hello there,
Anyone has any case study example regarding transmitting Ethernet PW over MPLS/IP core network?
Thanks

Hi chris,
Here is a link gives you brilliant explanation and also exampls configuration for EoMPLS and other stuff.
In fact this is taken from the Layer 2 VPN Architectures book by Cisco Press. I found it extremely helpful. It covers both the modes RAW mode(port based) and TAGGED mode(vlan based mode)
http://fengnet.com/book/Layer%202%20VPN%20Architectures/ch07.html#idd1e13647
HTH
Kishore

Similar Messages

Pseudowire over TE MPLS

Has anyone used Pseudowire over Traffic Enginnering MPLS?
What i would like to do is setup the MPLS TE using OSPF, built layer 3 tunnels between sites and then use Pseudowire to extend vlans over the TE MPLS tunnels and isolate the vlans using VRF-Lite.
Advice pls..
Francisco

Hi Francisco,
You can map a PW to a MPLS-TE tunnel via the PW-class:
pseudowire-class TE
encapsulation mpls
preferred-path interface Tunnel0
interface Ethernet0/0
xconnect 1.1.1.1 10 pw-class TE
HTH
Laurent.

Pseudowire over Traffic Enginnering MPLS

I think i have asked a similar question under MPLS..
But anyway has anyone used Pseudowire over Traffic Enginnering MPLS?
What i would like to do is setup the MPLS TE using OSPF, built layer 3 tunnels between sites and then use Pseudowire to extend vlans over the TE MPLS tunnels and isolate the vlans using VRF-Lite.
Advice pls..
Francisco

Hi Francisco,
You can map a PW to a MPLS-TE tunnel via the PW-class:
pseudowire-class TE
encapsulation mpls
preferred-path interface Tunnel0
interface Ethernet0/0
xconnect 1.1.1.1 10 pw-class TE
HTH
Laurent.

Control Packets over non-MPLS connection

Is it possible to configure Cisco router 7204 to send BGP packets not over LSP that has been established for the BGP peer, PE router, but over non-MPLS connection, while all data traffic to the PE router get forwarded through the LSP. In other words, I'm wondering it is possible to constrain all control
packets, including BGP, OSPF and LDP, to the non-MPLS interfaces, even though the LSP exists for the destination prefixes for the BGP packets.
I hope it could be applied to establishing MP-iBGP sessions between PE routers in MPLS/VPN network, in other words, we want all BGP packets not be forwarded through the LSP established between two PE routers, which is actually an ATM LER system since we have established non-MPLS connections between LERs in order to forward control packets including routing protocol and MPLS signaling protocol.
Any response will greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Yongjun.

Yongjun,
r1------r2-----r3
\-------r4----/
r1, r3 are PEs
r2 is a P rotuer
r4 is a non-LSR
r1-r2-r3 is LSP
r1-r4-r3 is a ip path, non-lsp
Then, you can do 'local-policy routing on r1 and r3 to send the Bgp control traffic over r1--r4--r3 path.
config on r1:
ip local policy route-map foo
route-map foo perm 10
match ip addr 100
set ip next-hop
access-list 100 perm tcp host eq 179 host
access-list 100 perm tcp host host eq 179
you got to do similar config on r3.
let me know if you have further q's.
best regards,
gopal

Citrix over an MPLS

We are running Citrix over our MPLS, is there any way to accelerate ICA? I was told the only way to do this is using SSL over a WAN.. No acceleration over an mpls?

Dan,
If the Citrix flows can be redirected before being label switched in MPLS then WAAS can accelerate. Morever, to Chris's point, the WAE can decrypt an SSL based Citrix flow, accelerate, reencrypt and send it back on the wire to the Core WAE, then on to Citrix head end.
Do you have the option of transparently redirecting (wccp) the Citrix traffic prior to entering the MPLS cloud?
Another consideration if you can redirect the traffic via wccp prior to entering MPLS cloud, is if you have ECMP routing with dual mpls links and dual PE routers - Make sure you can leverge wccp negotiated return to avoid redirect loops..

DiffServ & TE paths are required to deploy commercial VoIP over a MPLS net.

Dear members.
There's something I'd like to know from those that truly and successfully
implement commercial VoIP over a MPLS infrastructure.
Supporting IP QoS (DiffServ) across the core backbone and/or MPLS traffic-
engineered paths is really required ?
Consider a whole backbone built with high speed throughput connections, plenty of bandwidth availability and no periods of congestion!
I do believe TE tunnels (paths) are necessary for quick recovery when a node
or link fails, but rather them assuming something I haven't experienced yet
I'd like to listen from those who really have already successfully deployed
commercial VoIP.
Best regards.
Murilo Pugliese.

With increasing adoption of voice over IP (VoIP), the landscape for deployment is rapidly changing. Service providers are often driven by the need to provide customers a high grade of service to carry voice traffic across a network. However, today's multiservice packet networks rely on IP-based packet switching. In addition, IP by itself is simply best-effort service that is not sufficient to provide the strict delay, jitter, and bandwidth guarantees required for VoIP and other real-time traffic. Cisco IOS QoS features are ideal for this situation. Using the IETF differentiated services (DiffServ) model for QoS, VoIP traffic can be treated appropriately.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns341/ns396/ns172/ns155/networking_solutions_white_paper09186a00800a8441.shtml

How to prevent packet forwarding over non-MPLS connection.

I'm wondering if it is possible to configure Cisco ESR to not forward packet over non-MPLS connection(VPI/VCI=0/32) when an LSP for its destination has not been established, while allowing control packets(BGP, LDP, OSPF) to be sent over non-MPLS connection. The reason why I ask about is as follows.
Referring to the following network configuration,
R1 --- Cisco_ESR --- ATM_LSR --- LER --- R2
<--> non-MPLS connection
----------------------->
LSPs
----------------------->
In the ordinary operation, when a packet arrives at Cisco_LER from R1, it gets forwarded over an LSP if available, while getting forwarded over non-MPLS connection(VPI/VCI=0/32) if the corresponding LSP is not available. In the configuration mentioned above,ATM_LSR does software-based packet processing for incoming packet through non-MPLS channel, while doing cell-switching for LSP traffic. Thus if ESR sends packet over non-MPLS connection, e.g, STM-1c, the ATM_LSR could get crashed or time-critical control traffic could be delayed or lost, thereby resulting in BGP/LDP session failure between ESR and ATM_LSR or LER.
In summary, my question is how to prevent Cisco_ESR from forwarding packets over non-MPLS connection when LSPs for their destinations are not available due to LSP failures.
Thanks.
Yongjun.

It already is, except for Aliens, they have access to everything on your phone(they always have had this access) .

Gre tunnel over 2 mpls routers

I have 2 sites and the voice server is in site A and Site B are the remote phones . Right now voice vlan go over the DMVPN we are facing some degraded performance and decided to move voice traffic to mpls .
We need to carry the multicast traffic as well which is not supported over our MPLS circuit. I have no idea why provider is not supporting multicast traffic over mpls circuit.
So we decided to create GRE tunnels to carry multicast traffic over MPLS .We have L3 switches on both sites Site A cisco 4500 and Site B cisco 3850 . and MPLS connectivity is reachable upto L3 core switches. With 3850 we had issue to create tunnels and i have upgraded the IOS after upgrading i came to know no more tunnels are supported on 3850. So cannot have Gre tunnel between our L3 switches over the MPLS.
My Question is can i ask the MPLS provider to setup tunnels on their routers which they are ready to help and point the static routes for voice vlan towards gre tunnels over mpls .
Can you advise any other solution or does this solution would work.?

Aneesh,
Lost of connectivity between the two PEs would indeed cause the GRE tunnel interface to go down, assuming that you configure tunnel keepalives as follow:
int tu0
keepalive
Regards

Ethernet default over wireless connection.

when I boot up I want my network to default to the ethernet which is connected to the Dynadock U3.0 before the wireless in the Lenovo x220 laptop. The ethernet is much faster. is there any way I can have this occur automatically - rather than me having to shut off the wireless connection? any ideas?

Mount the TC disk manually.
In Finder use Go, Connect to server.
Type in the following.
AFP://TCname.local (TCname is the actual network name of the TC. I strongly recommend you use SMB names.. ie short, no spaces and pure alphanumeric)
Find out the Network version of the TC name if you don't want to comply to the above rule. The best way is to discover it via netstat scan.
Open network utility.
Locate your TC on it.. since my TC is correctly named it shows up as tcgen4.local
I then type in AFP://tcgen4.local
Then the computer can discover the TC and it will ask for a password. The default is public
Type in whatever you changed it to or public.
The TC disk should now be mounted.
If this fails.. reset the TC to factory and start over. Name it correctly.. all short names, no spaces and pure alphanumeric will be a lot lot easier.
Then manually force the mounting.

Running Large Backups over an MPLS Network

We are opening up a second data center at my organization. The location is about 60 miles from our primary data center.
At our primary data center we use an MPLS network for our WAN. We have ll remote locations on our WAN and we have a DS-3 that connects to our primary data center.
At our new second data center we will connect it to the MPLS network.
Do you think we should run our backups between the 2 data centers across the MPLS or do you think we should order a seperate private line or ethernet type service between the 2 data centers? All back ups from our primary data center will continually move across the network to our new secondary data center.
Do you think MPLS is a good technology to run large back ups across? Is it reliable enough

"Do you think MPLS is a good technology to run large back ups across?"
Sure.
"Is it reliable enough"
Depends more on your MPLS provider than the technology itself.
Two issues that may be more important to you vs. how "reliable" MPLS is, might be cost of bandwidth vs. other technologies or sharing the MPLS bandwidth with non-backup applications. The latter would depend much on what QoS that might be available to you to insure your backup traffic doesn't adversely impact non-backup traffic.

MPLS over non-MPLS network

A Chairde,
I am nearly sure the answer is no, but will ask anyway.
I want to connect two private networks over a corporate WAN , and am looking to keep the router traffic (BGP) and routing traffic under control.
I only have control of the two lab routers, the routers in middle are controlled by IT dept. , is there anyway of setting up MPLS with this scenario ???
Any other suggestions ......

You could indeed run MPLS over a GRE interface.
If you want to run MPLS VPN, then I would suggest configuring MPLS VPN over l2tpv3. See the following URL for more details:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1829/products_feature_guide09186a00802b4817.html
Let me know if I answered your question,

Ethernet modbus over 409999

I have connected my plc with labview by via modbus Ethernet and I have control with holding registers that 400001-40999 but holding registers over that give me 0 all time.
So please tell me if there are some new configuration to overcome this problem.

Hi Nouh,
From looking at your code and creating something similar on my side, I'm interested to see how you have it executing. Do you press the run arrow button or the run continuously button? Without a while loop or any other sort of architecture the VI will only execute once very quickly if the run arrow is pressed, which doesn't allow enough time for the Modbus I/O Server to process a value change. Run continuously does allow for a good connection to the I/O server, however the program must be ended with the abort button (which is usually not good practice). Another tool I used to work with this problem was the Modbus Simluator which can be found in the NI Example Finder (in LabVIEW go to Help>>Find Examples, then search for Modbus). Play around with the simulator and try adding registers via "Create Bound Variables..." with the register values you're looking for.
Tim W.
Applications Engineering
National Instruments
http://www.ni.com/support

Ethernet communications over writing RIO on boot up

I have CRio 9068 that writes all setpoints to a text file on board while the program is running. My HMI is Vartech touch screen computer running windows 7 embeded. When power is cycled to the system and it reboots both the controller and HMI I loose my setpoints that were in the text files as they are getting over written from the touchscreen. We are using network streams over ethernet for the communications between devices. Is there any sample codes that I can look at to better understand how to prevent this from happing? I have thought about using a first call wired to time delay off timer then allowing the string to write the new variables but I don't think this is the best solution.

You'll want to Fetch the current values from your cRIO and store them on your HMI. You can see this pattern by creating the LabVIEW Real-Time Control on CompactRIO sample project, opening RT Main.vi on the cRIO and look at the case "Send Control Configuration to UI". Basically the messaging scheme you're talking about should be bydirectional. When your HMI connects to the cRIO it requests an update BEFORE it sends anything out, and waits for the cRIO to respond.

Internet over ethernet, none over Extreme Base Station

I have optical cable to the house (no modem involved). When I connect directly to my mac, the cable company hands out a 64.xx.xx.xx IP address and I get blazing internet. When I connect to the AEBS it hands out a 10.xx.xx.xx IP address (I don't remember ever seeing the cable company hand out that kind of IP address before). Everything appears as if it should work, but I get no internet. The AEBS is set to share a single IP address using 10.xx.xx.xx addressing. The cable company has MAC addresses for both the iMac and the AEBS, so it should work. Everything was working before macworld... any thoughts? Much appreciated.
17" iMac G4 Mac OS X (10.4.4)

Thanks Don.
Before yesterday, the airport extreme base station (AEBS) was connected to my cable from the internet company and working just fine (receiveing a valid IP address and all). Yesterday, I get home from Macworld and my wife tells me we haven't had internet. Upon investigating, I find that the IP address that my AEBS is getting over DHCP is in the 10.xx.xx.xx format. My AEBS is still connected to the cable from my ISP and my computer is getting a full reception over my network with the AEBS, but no internet. I then connect the ISP's cable directly to my iMac over ethernet and PRESTO! a valid IP address in the 64.xx.xx.xx format and internet. My ISP tells me it's probably my AEBS. Today I hard reset the AEBS, re-configured it and got the same negative result (an IP address in the 10.xx.xx.xx format). I have an airport express (express) and decided to try that. I reconfigured it as a base station, and it worked...temporarily. Initially I got a valid IP address in the 64.xx.xx.xx format, internet worked great. I moved it around the room a couple times trying to find an optimal location and it started having the same problem as the AEBS, the only IP address it got from my ISP was an invalid or non-working IP in the 10.xx.xx.xx format. The only similarity between the "outage" of the AEBS and the express is that they were plugged into the same outlet when they went "out". My wife said that yesterday, prior to the AEBS going out, it had accidentaly been unplugged from the wall, and then immediately re-plugged. I'm convinced it's either a power surge issue of some sort which fryed them both (except I am getting an IP address, albeit an imperfect one), incompatible firmware, a virus, or my ISP... I'm really hoping it's the ISP.
17" iMac G4 Mac OS X (10.4.4)

Port Channel over L2 MPLS links

Hello.
I was hoping that someone could over some suggestions on best practice or recommendations for configuring port channel to bundle to layer 2 MPLS links that we have.
We have racks in two geographically separated data centres, each rack has a stack of Cisco 3850 switches, and there are two 100Mbps layer 2 connections linking these stacks together. The links are provided by our supplier and runs over their core network (I can get more info on their setup if need be).
I had initially just configured a simple port channel bundling the two ports on "Switch A", and the same on "Switch B". However I have since noticed that one of the ports was put into error disabled state, and I have my doubts that we ever had 200Mbps throughput over the portchannel.
The logs showed:
UDLD-4-UDLD_PORT_DISABLED: UDLD disabled interface Gix/x/x, aggressive mode failure detected
%PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: udld error detected on Gix/x/x, putting Gix/x/x in err-disable state
How I understand is that one of ports recieved an unexpected (or incorrect) BPDU packet, and shut the port down as part of spanning tree process to stop a loop forming.
For the time being I have removed the port channel config and re-opened all the ports, so I believe one of the ports is now in blocking state.
Whilst redundancy for these links is great, ideally I would like to have the links bundled so I also get the benefit of higher throughput.
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Thank you

Hi,
Thank you for your reply and suggestions. I have been reading up on layer 2 protocol tunnelling and I'm not sure if this will work for us. According to these guidelines for the catalyst 3550 (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3550/software/release/12-1_19_ea1/configuration/guide/3550scg/swtunnel.html#wp1006657) it states:
•If you enable PAgP or LACP tunneling, we recommend that you also enable UDLD on the interface for faster link-failure detection.
•Tunneling is not supported on trunk ports. If you enter the l2protocol-tunnel interface configuration command on a trunk port, the command is accepted, but Layer 2 tunneling does not take affect unless you change the port to a tunnel port or an access port.
•EtherChannel port groups are compatible with tunnel ports when the 802.1Q configuration is consistent within an EtherChannel port group.
(maybe its a different and is supported on 3850's)
Also, I cant use layer 3 over this link as I am looking to extend VLANs over the link so devices and virtual machines in each of the datacentre are in the same subnet and broadcast domain.
I will speak with the supplier to see what they are willing to do.
Thanks again.

Ethernet Pseudowire over IP/MPLS

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for