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,

Similar Messages

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

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) .

How LACP works over non-ethernet networks?

Hi all. Everybody knows how works LACP between two switches.
This is predictable wired links. But how it works in another, not clear ethernet networks? Supposing one link in LAG is over wireless transparent bridge. In this case values of packet delay, jitter and packet loss over one of the links differs from another.
Instead wireless bridge there can be IP/MPLS or SDH network for example.
How it works? Are there any tresholds for counters on links? Maybe any configurable parameters?

The configuration of each router should be provided in the Apple Support article link I provided you.
Basically you will not need to make any changes to the Motorola router just the AirPort Express.
Roaming Network Setup Basics
For the AirPort Express base station:
Setup the base station as a bridge. Network tab > Router Mode: Off (Bridge Mode)
Provide a unique Base Station Name.
The Network Name (SSID) should be identical to that of the Motorola.
If using security, use the same security type (WEP, WPA, etc.) and password. Note: It is highly recommended that you use WPA2 Personal for best bandwidth performance.
The following are the basic setup steps:
Power all the networking hardware down.
Perform a "factory default" reset on the AirPort Express. Note: You may have to perform this more than once to make sure they "stick."
Connect one Ethernet cable between the Ethernet port on the Motorola router to the Ethernet port on the Express.
Power up just the Motorola router. Verify that you can get Internet connectivity with network clients either by wireless or by wire connections to the Motorola router.
Power up the Express base station. Use the AirPort Utility to select it.
Configure the Express with the Network Mode option set to: Create a wireless network. (Note: Do NOT set it to "Extend a wireless network."
Set the Wireless Network Name, Wireless Security, & Wireless Password options to be exactly the same as that used for the Motorola.
Set the Router Mode to: Off (Bridge Mode).
Select Update and allow the Express to restart.
Once restarted verify that you can roam with a wireless laptop or iOS device between base stations and still gain Internet access.

Welcome to the MPLS over ATM Discussion

Welcome to the Cisco Networking Professionals Connection Service Provider Forum. This conversation will provide you the opportunity to discuss issues surrounding MPLS over ATM. We encourage everyone to share their knowledge and start conversations on issues such as Frame-based MPLS networks, multiservice networks, VPN scalability, multiple service classes, multicast, VoIP and any other topic concerning MPLS over ATM.
Remember, just like in the workplace, be courteous to your fellow forum participants. Please refrain from using disparaging or obscene language or posting advertisements.
We encourage you to tell your fellow networking professionals about the site. If you would like us to send them a personal invitation simply send their names and e-mail addresses along with your name to us at [email protected]

This is easily done with dial peer statements . The dial peer in your originating router must route the calls to the terminating router first. That would look like :
dial-peer voice xxxxx voip ( the xxxxx is just a tag)
destination-pattern 45... (that would route any 5-digit calls beginning with 45)
session-target ipv4:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (ip address of the terminating router)
If digitones are to be dialed after the connection is established, use the statement:
dtmf-relay-h.245-alphanumeric
You could also use a statement to specify the codec to be used:
codec g711ulaw
You would need multiple voip dial peers if the calls were going to different routers based on the dialed digits. If all calls are sent to the same terminating router, use all wild cards in the dest-pattern statement.
At the terminating router configure pots dial peers:
dial-peer voice xxxxx pots
dest-pattern 45...
port x/x (whichever port the call is to be terminated on)
prefix 45 (this re-inserts matched digits which are stripped off by the pots dp)
Repeat for other ports which will receive calls.
Paul

How can I find the all path available for a MPLS VPN in SP network

How can I find the all path available for a MPLS VPN in SP network between PE to PE and CE to CE?

Hi There
If we need to find all the available paths for a remote CE from a local PE it will depend upon whether its a RR or non-RR design. If the MP-iBGP deisgn is non-RR the below vrf specific command
sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf "vrf_name" will show us the MP-iBGP RT for that particular VPN. It will show us the next hop. Checking the route for same in the Global RT will show us the path(s) available for same ( load-balancing considered) .Then we can do a trace using the Local PE MP-iBGP loopback as source to remote PE's MP-iBGP loopback to get the physical Hops involved.
However if the design is RR-based there might be complications involved when the RR is in the forwarding path ie we have NHS being set to RR-MP-iBGP loopback and the trace using the Local PE MP-iBGP loopback as source to remote PE's MP-iBGP loopback will get us the physical Hops involved.
If we have redundant RRs being used with NHS being set then the output of sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf "vrf_name" will show us two different available paths for the remote CE destination but just one being used.
RR-based design with no NHS being used will always to cater to single path for the remote CE detsination.
So in any case the actual path used for the remote CE connectivity would be a single unless we are using load-balancing.
Hope this helps you a bit on your requirement
Thanks & Regards
Vaibhava Varma

MPLS-VPN in Campus Network

Hi,
Can anyone advise me how to migrate a existing non-mpls (nortel/3com) network to an mpls network.
Any pdf or doc file.
Thanks,
Noor

Hi Noor,
are you migrating to Cisco infrastructure ? if yes then with MPLS and VRFs you can archive a scalable network virtulization and label switching with MPLS/L3VPN and VRF lite
see the bellow link for high level understanding
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns431/ns658/net_brochure0900aecd804a17db.html
about how to migrate this is something you need to plan for example if you setup your core to support MPLS then you can start migrate PEs or departments that Support VRFs/VPN one by one to join the new MPLS core
HTH
if helpful Rate

MPLS over encryption

Hello Friend,
Need ur help on MPLS over-relay setup encryption.
I have 10sites across world which will connect via MPLS, were ISP will participate in customer routing they will do the optimized routing.
CE routers are managed my ISP, i need to encrypt the data before entering into the MPLS cloud and decrypt the data when its entering the other end LAN.
Basically looking for encryption between CE to CE is there is any way to do this?????
Regards,
Naren

Hello Naren,
CE to CE encryption is not a problem.
As discussed in a recent thread you can use DMVPN or GETVPN to implement a mesh of encrypted communication tunnels between different CE sites.
For DMVPN you can refer to the solution reference network design
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/DMVPDG.html
another design guide for enterprise using MPLS L3 VPN services
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/ngwane.html
I've tested DMVPN over an MPLS L3 VPN and it works well.
GETVPN is a more recent security framework that can be considered too
Hope to help
Giuseppe

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

MPLS over GRE tunnles

HI : Are there any MTU issues of running MPLS over GRE tunnels??
what will be the MTU size ?
thnak you

GRE has an overhead of 24 bytes, and can directly interfere with the MPLS overhead. The MTU associated with an MPLS packet is broken down like so:
Ethernet Payload - 1500
802.1q header - 18
AToM Header - 4 (Required for ATM and FR only)
AToM Label - 4
LDP Label - 4
TE Label - 4
MPLS Fast Reroute - 4
Total = 1538
Granted, you may not configure all of those features above into your MPLS network, this is a good baseline to use for the MPLS MTU. You need to configure the core network to accept an MTU of at least 1538 bytes, without GRE.
You need to ensure that your GRE tunnels can support an MTU greater than 1562 if you plan to implement additional MPLS features like TE and AToM.

Difrence between ... MPLS over Frame-Relay ATM

Hai all,
Sorry to ask very basic quiestion ..can some one tell what is the difrnce and advantage of MPLS over ATM and Frame-Relay ......pls provide me a better link ..for refrnce
Thanks in advance
Lijesh

MPLS over ATM or MPLS over Frame-Relay it's not good idea, because if you use cell-mode labeling, you find someone limitation at this technology. DLCI and VPI/VCI value at this protocols it's not have large space. If you know how operate cell-mode, try to look at just for sample bits length with DLCI value at Frame-Relay protocol or VPI/VCI value at ATM protocolâ¦ Of course you can use same cheat like VCI-merge, but I think it's not very good idea.
Building new network infrastructure at this protocols it's not good ideaâ¦ It's good idea to fast implement MPLS technology in old network infrastructure build with this protocols (just for sample, you can linked ATM forwarding plane and MPLS forwarding plane (in this situation you can abandon to use fixed configuration VPI/VCI for IP network and can use benefits offered ATM technology with MPLS)), but not for new network infrastructure. If you need to offer services with this protocols, you can use Any Transport Over MPLS technology.
For more information look at this page - http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk798/tsd_technology_support_protocol_home.html

MPLS over IPv6?

I've heard IPv6 over MPLS lots of times, but never heard of MPLS over IPv6.
Is it possible to employ MPLS over pre-exist IPv6 network? If not currently, any research?

I have heard too much going on in this field. Any particular interest?

MPLS over ATM - VP Tunnel (cell) or VC (frame)?

Does anybody use the MPLS over VP tunnel with the Cisco 8540 ATM MPLS core? Is it a stable solution or one should better leave the ATM MPLS cell mode and convert to frame mode over ATM?

Both Cell mode and frame mode are stable solutions. But the scenario where we use them are different. I see that Cisco 8540 ATM MPLS Core is used. In this case, I would say that cell mode MPLS is a better solution for the following reason(s); In normal (non-MPLS) ATM core the L2 topology might be different from L3 topology. Say for example, a destination IP (a.b.c.d) might be shown as 3 hops (routers) away but there can be even 10 or more ATM switches in between. In this case the L2 topology might not be an optimal path. Hence we go for cell mode operation, where we form a full mesh topology and hence an optimal path.

MPLS over ATM encapsulation

Hello,
During I was doing an MPLS interoperability test between our ATM-LER and Cisco 7204 router, I found an implementation difference wrt MPLS over ATM encapsulation between two systems. Our system encapsulates an MPLS packet with null shim label(=0), while Cisco router does it with non-null shim label(!= 0), I guest it may be a VCD value that is internally used in Cisco system. I think that an MPLS over ATM packet should be encapsulated with null label value in the top shim header in accordance with RFC 3035 described below.
"If the packet has a label stack with n entries, it MUST carry a shim with n entries. The actual value of the top label is encoded in the VPI/VCI field. The label value of the top entry in the shim (which is just a "placeholder" entry) MUST be set to 0 upon transmission, and MUST be ignored upon reception. The packet's outgoing TTL, and its CoS, are carried in the TTL and CoS fields respectively of the top stack entry in the shim."
Any response will be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Yongjun.

No, I'm NOT requesting a new feature, but talking about compliance with
the MPLS standard, RFC 3035, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching". What I'm saying is that Cisco router sends an MPLS packet on LC-ATM interface with a VCD (some sort of connection identifer in Cisco router) value set on the top-of-stack label, while the standard specifies the top-of-stack label should be used only for a placeholder and thus MUST be set to '0'. To my best knowledge, most of edge ATM-LSR systems set the top label value to '0' in accordance with RFC 3035. If the ingress edge ATM-LSR (Cisco) forwards an MPLS packet with non-zero label on the top-of-stack, then the egress ATM-LSR has two choices, one is just to ignore the non-zero label value, (causing no problem), the other is to discard the MPLS packet because the top-of-stack label should have been zero and non-zero is invalid. If any implementation selects the latter option, it may not be possible to interoperate with Cisco system through LC-ATM interface.
Regards,
Yongjun.

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.

MPLS over non-MPLS network

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for