Mpls-te vs performance routing (PFR)

Hello All,
Can someone tell me if MPLS-TE can use ip sla stats like PFR and is anyone using PFR in a enterprise (single AS) and redistrubing BGP to an IGP.
current we are using regular OSPF with Mpls looking for with smarter load balancing capability.
1. All traffic is voip
2. core is 7200 vxr's
any suggestions / links are appreciated
thanks
john

Hello John,
MPLS Te has its own signaling plane based on RSVP-TE and TE extensions of link state protocols.
So it doesn't use or interact with IP SLA.
to be noted that if you are in an MPLS scenario you don't need to redistribute BGP into OSPF.
the mpls forwarding for recursion follows the LSP path to the BGP next-hop (loopback or remote PE).
so if you multiple paths to BGP next-hop CEF based per destination load balancing using exor of IP SA, IP DA, and hash should already happens.
if you redistribute the BGP networks in IGP LDP will create additional LSPs for these IP subnets but the load balancing should not improve.
if you have two paths to BGP next hop you will have two paths to VOIP subnet
but using per packet load balancing has negative effects on jitter (delay variation)
Hope to help
Giuseppe

Similar Messages

Performance Routing (PfR) with single router, dual ISP and load balancing

It looks like PfR can do this but I have only found information about this feature which will start using ISP2 once ISP1 reaches 75% usage. But this is not load balancing.
Can we accomplish load balancing utilizing a single router with dual ISPs using this PfR feature?
Or do we have to use another feature?
thank you in advance

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
I'm rusty using OER/PfR, but I recall it could load balance two links on same router. The issue, I also recall, if doing BGP, OER/PfR has to detect a load imbalance, and there's a certain difference allowance, and OER/PfR takes some time to decide, so depending on actual traffic, it might not be obvious it's working. If doing BGP, there's a hidden command (which I don't recall is) that will load balance the two links on the same router; then you use OER/PfR to dynamically refine the balance load.

MPLS support for 2621XM Router

Hi ,
Can anyone suggest me the IOS for 2621XM Router to support the MPLS LDP.
My router is a Provider edge router.
My flash is only 32 MB .
Thanx in advance
yogesh

Hi
You should use : C2600-spservicesk9-mz
This IOS is SP Services IOS for 2600 & 2600XM series router which support MPLS .
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps5460/prod_bulletin09186a00801af451.html
Regards
Chetan Kumar
http://chetanress.blogspot.com

How to setup Sun Solaris 5.7 to perform routing

How to setup Sun Solaris 5.7 to perform routing and how to setup as a bridge.

Hi,
1.You will have to have two interfaces
Interface1 should be from network1
interface2 should be from network2
2.will have to create hostname.interface files for each interface
hostname.qfe0 hostname.qfe1
3.type hostname and ipAddressof each interface in /etc/inet/hosts
4.create /etc/defaultrouter file for static route
use "route" commands to create routes for the other interfaces.
Check out the docs.sun.com
Solaris 7 Administartion guide
TCP/IP Data Communication Guide
for more details
Thanks & Regards
Dhruva
Thanks & Regards
Dhruva

MPLS EXP BITS, PHB Router, forwarding treatement

Hi every body
I hope you guys are doing great. Reading this great book " MPLS fundamentals" , got some question for you guys.
Let say R1 Is PHP router , it will pop incoming label 234 before sending the plain ip packet to R2
---cloud---R1------R2---IP world
1) A mpls labelled packet ( labelled 234)arrives on R1 from MPLS cloud, what will R1 do next as far QOS forwarding of packet is concerened?
As R1 is PHB, it is supposed to POP label 234, will R1 do QOS forwarding ( scheduling, queing ) first based on EXP bits in label 234 and then POP label 234 ? Please keep in mind we are not using any qos group, i am just exploring default behavior.
Thanks and have a great weekend

Hello Sarah,
By Defaut, NO the PHP router in this Case R1 doesnt perform any QoS sheduling or Queing on label 234.
Once R1 recieves Label 234, it performs the POP operation before it applies QoS queing on label 234.
Regards,
Mohamed

MPLS Termination at Datacenter - Router vs. L3 Switch

Hello all,
I'm in a position where I need to make a decision regarding termination of an ethernet MPLS link at our datacenter, and I have two options -
Terminate to the current "core" switch, a 3750 stack, and run BGP.
Terminate to a 3925, run BGP, and redistribute into EIGRP or OSPF for the core switch.
I know the older wisdom held that a WAN should generally terminate to a router, but the 3750s present a potential opportunity to eliminate a piece of hardware that is less redundant than the switch stack itself. Am I missing any caveats that I shouldn't be, in considering eliminating the router from the equation?
Any opinions and/or insight are appreciated.
Thanks!

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
The L3 switch has much more raw packet forwarding performance than an ISR; how much bandwidth is a consideration.
Is the hand-off require a MPLS enabled port? (I don't thing the LAN 3750s support that.)
Regarding redundancy, depending exactly upon hand-off configuration port requirements, it may be possible to configure a ready-for-immediate-use backup port on another switch member. I.e. if the port hosting switch member dies, you can quickly repatch into the predefined "backup" port.
A 3750 will likely be much more BGP feature "challenged" then the router; also a 3750's has less control plane capacity than an ISR (although the ISR control plane and data plane share the CPU - i.e. in corner cases, a 3750 could have more control plane capacity than the ISR).

Redundant access from MPLS VPN to global routing table

Several our customers have MPLS VPNs deployed over our infrastructure. Part of them requires access to Internet (global routing table in our case).
As I'm not aware of any methods how to dynamicaly import/export routes between VRF/Global routing tables, at the moment there are static routes configured - one inside VRF pointing to global next hop, another one in global routing table, pointing to interface inside VRF.
Task is to configure redundant access to Internet. By redundancy I mean using several exit points (primary and backup), what physically represents separate boxes.
Here comes tricky part - both global static routes (on both boxes, meaning) are valid and reachable in all cases - no matter if specific prefix is reachable in VRF or not. What I'd like to achieve is that specific static route becomes valid only if specific prefix is reachable inside VRF. Yea, sounds like dynamic routing :), I know
OK, hope U got the idea. Any solutions/recommendations ? Running all Internet routing inside VRF isn't an option, at least for now :(

Hi Andris,
I did not mean to have a VRF on the CE. The CE would have both PVCs in the global routing table - his ONLY routing table in fact. One PVC would be used to announce routes into the customer specific VPN (VRF configured on the PE). The other PVC would allow for internet access through the PE (global IP routing table on the PE).
dot1q will be ok as well.
This way the CE can be a normal BGP peer to the PE, i.e. there is no MPLS VPN involved here. This allows all options of customer-ISP connectivity.
Example:
PE config:
interface Serial0/0
encapsulation frame-relay
interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
description customer VPN access
ip vrf customer
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
interface Serial0/0.2 point-to-point
description customer Internet access
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252
router rip
address-family ipv4 vrf customer
version 2
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
redistribute bgp 65000 metric 5
router bgp 65000
neighbor 192.168.1.2 remote-as 65001
address-family ipv4 vrf customer
redistribute rip
CE config:
interface Serial0/0
encapsulation frame-relay
interface Serial0.1 point-to-point
description VPN access
ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.252
interface Serial0.2 point-to-point
description Internet access
ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252
router bgp 65001
neighbor 192.168.1.1 remote-as 65000
router rip
version 2
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
Of course you can replace RIP with whatever is suitable for you. And don´t sue me when you do not apply required BGP filters for internet access... ;-)
The other option ("mini internet") would be feasible as well. Just make sure your BGP filters are NEVER messed up and additionally apply a limit on the numbers of prefixes in your VRF mini-internet.
Regards
Martin

Configuring MPLS VPN using static routing

Hi,
I am managed to set up a BGP/MPLS VPN in a laboratory using CS3620 routers running IOS 12.2(3) with ISIS. I am thinking of using static routes among the PE and P routers instead of a IGP. Does anyone know if Cisco routers supports static configuration of LSP? I have tried but could not get it work.

You can very well run MPLS with static routing in the core, as in Cisco we have to meet 2 criterias to have a MPLS forwarding Table.
1) Creating the LIB
This thing lies in having LDP neighborship netween two peers and you have Label bindings.
This is irrespective of what is the best next hop to reach the advertising peers LDP_ID.
2) Creating the LFIB
Now after considering all the Label bindings, the LDP_ID which can be reached out an interface
as a next hop, those Label bindings get installed in the LFIB.
So considering the above two points, we have to be careful in static routes
only for interfaces like Ethernet (Multiaccess Segments).
As in CEF when you give a static route pointing to an Ethernet Interface, CEF creates a
GLean Adjacency (Meaning there could be multiple hosts as the next hop on this segement, and it will glean for the right next-hop)
Now you may observe that when you give a static route only pointing to an Ethernet interface,
you LDP adjacency may come up and you may exchange the bindings with each other. But the Label Forarding Table is not created. This is bcos of this being a Multiaccess interface. And you have
Glean For it. If its a Normal WAN interface like Serial or POS, then there is no problem of
GLean and you would have a Valid Cached Adjacency.
So to avoid probelems with Ethernet interfaces you can simply specify the next-hop-ip address.
For Eg: ip route 10.10.31.250 255.255.255.255 10.10.31.226 (Without the Interface)
ip route 10.10.31.250 255.255.255.255 fa0/0 10.10.31.226 (Or with the Interface)
Only Difference in both is in the first one it has to do a recursive lookup for the outgoing interface. Otherwise both work well. And you can have static routes in your network
running MPLS.
And doing this CEF would would work as it should and you would have a Valid Cached Adjacency.
So this is applicable for Cisco devices which use CEF, including 6500 with SUP720.
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop

SUP720 MPLS support only 700 routes per VRF?

In following document i found that SUP720 supporting only 700 router per 1 VRF. Am i right?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/modules/ps4835/products_data_sheet09186a0080159856.html

There is no such thing as a limit of 700 routes per VRF. What is described in this URL is that scalability testing has been performed with 1024 VRFs with 700 routes each (1024*700=716800 routes total).
You could go way beyond 700 routes per VRF if you don't plan to provision that many VRFs.
Let me know if I answered your question,

MPLS - unknown metric on routes found on BGP table

Hi All,
Wondering what are below highlighted value as they are used for route preferences.
pe401c6506#sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf DATA 10.18.0.0/16
BGP routing table entry for 10.254.0.253:120:10.18.0.0/16, version 157413
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table DATA)
Advertised to update-groups:
     1          2          3          4          5          6          7
     8          10         11         12         13         14         15
     53
Local, (aggregated by 65001 10.254.4.254), (Received from a RR-client), imported path from 10.254.4.254:120:10.18.0.0/16
    10.254.4.254 (metric 3) from 10.254.4.254 (10.254.4.254)
      Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, weight 300, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate
      Extended Community: RT:65001:120
Local, (aggregated by 65001 10.254.4.253), (Received from a RR-client), imported path from 10.254.4.253:120:10.18.0.0/16
    10.254.4.253 (metric 2) from 10.254.4.253 (10.254.4.253)
      Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, weight 300, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate, best
      Extended Community: RT:65001:120
*Note - Are red highlighted some sort of different metric from the BGP MED metric?
Regards,
Hin

Hi Hin
The Red Highlighted Metrics are the IGP Metrics to reach the MP-iBGP Peer which is the 8th Criterion for Best Path Selection Algo..
If we will check for a show ip route 10.254.4.254/253 we will see the IGP metric as to be as the one highlighted in red above.
Hope this helps to answer your query..
Regards
Varma

MPLS feature on 2911 Router

Hi dears,
I already have a MPLS network built on old Cisco 1841 with 12.4(24)T4 release, now for a new branch we move on new 2911 with 15.1(4)M3
To configure MPLS tag switching I apply on C1841 configuration like:
mpls label protocol ldp
interface Tunnel3
description tunnel with central
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
mpls bgp forwarding
I try to "migrate" these configuration but the commands
mpls label protocol ldp
and under IF
mpls bgp forwarding
are not available!!
I search trough the documentation, but it's no clear if the command is unsupported in th 15.1(4)M3 release, in the feauture navigation tools MPLS is supported and also these command are linked from Cisco 15M&T command reference guide (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10592/prod_command_reference_list.html)
I need to activate the feature in some way?
Could you help me?
Thanks
Valerio

To have that feature is necessary to activate license on DataK9 feauture

Dual ISP Bandwidth Agreggation

Hi, my name is John. We have 1 uplink connected to a Cisco 1900 series router and another 1 uplink connected to a Cisco 2000 series router. Two uplink from 2 different ISP. 1 uplink has static WAN IP while the other 1 has dynamic WAN IP. They are then link to ASA and then from ASA to switches. My question is how can i configure the routers or ASA to combine the bandwidth of two uplinks

Hi Reza,
Thanks for your feedback.
In the case if both uplinks are coming from the same ISP, can we use
1.dual internet links NATing with PBR and IP SLA
https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/32186/dual-internet-links-nating-pbr-and-ip-sla
2.Load balancing using Performance Routing pfr/OER
https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/32216/load-balancing-using-performance-routing-pfroer
In my case, since the uplinks are from different ISPs, can i do failover on either ASA or the routers, such that when 1 uplink fail, it will automatically be tracked and switch the internet traffic from the 2nd uplink?

MPLS vs ROUTING

Guys first of all i am vvv new to this (MPLS) now guys i have read some few articles......plus some few chapters of few books on MPLS......the main theme of MPLS i sthat it is a lable technology send...froward packets on labels rather then plooking the ip address (tradional)........now guys what is th eplus point then.........i mean the only thing which i can see is that routers would not hold routing tables......so whats th emain theme of MPLS.......i mean i didnt get any main different....please help me clearing my concept....thanks alot for looking

The routers would still hold the IGP routing table. MPLS isn't a routing protocol. There used to be some performance gains because the router did a lookup on the label (32 bits). However that really isn't the case anymore with lookups being done in hardware. If you're running BGP across your network, with MPLS implemented you can remove BGP from you core devices and just have it on the edge devices. The biggest thing with MPLS though is the other services you can offer on the network once MPLS is deployed. You can offer Layer 3 VPNs, Layer 2 VPNs (EoMPLS, VPLS..) and MPLS Traffic Engineering.

Managing Route-Map based MPLS VPN

1) How to derive the VPN information of the MPLS VPN configured using route-maps? As I understand, stitching route-maps information to derive VPN is complex as it is difficult to derive & correlate the filters tied to each of the route-maps that are tied to a VRF :(
2) Is there any MIB to get from the MIB
a) Route-maps tied to each VRF
b) What is the filter associated with each route-map?
c) Definition of each of the above filter
It would have been nice if the route-maps' name had global-significance within AS, so that we could have treated route-maps, pretty much like the route-tragets. Alas, I doubt it is :(
It should be noted here that if the MPLS VPN is configured using route targets, the VPN information derivation is fairly straight forward throught MplsVpn MIB.
So, the question is what is the simplest way to derive the MPLS VPN info given that they are configured using route-maps in BGP for labelled-route-distribution & for the pkt association with the VRFs.
Thanks,
Suresh R

Each CE in a customer VPN is also added to the management VPN by selecting the Join the management VPN option in the service request user interface.
The function of the management route map is to allow only the routes to the specific CE into the management VPN. The Cisco IOS supports only one export route map and one import route map per VRF.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/netmgtsw/ps4748/products_user_guide_chapter09186a0080353ac3.html

MPLS vs Point-to-Point over Citrix Performance Difference

We run Citrix at our remote locations. We have two circuits at each location. One is a point to point for backup and the other is an MPLS circuit that is our primary. Both circuits are T-1 speeds.
We have all thin clients at our remote locations. When communication goes through the point to point circuit it utilizes much more bandwidth. Maybe 1.2 Mbps on average but when we communication through the MPLS circuit only 800 Kbps of bandwith is actually being used.
Can anyone explain this? I was thinking that maybe MPLS does a faster job of switching the packets across the WAN and that the Citrix does not need to use as much bandwidth because of this. This analyis was completed across all of our sites and in each case Citrix uses more bandwidth on a point-to-point vs an MPLS circuit. I have not had any users complain when accessing either ciruits.
What do you think is causing this?

Hi,
I fully agree with Swaroop. Being an instructor teaching many MPLS classes I was frequently confronted with the opinion MPLS is "faster" as it is "switching". This is not true and I always countered this - provocantly - stating that MPLS is reducing throughput, so it is slower! What I mean writing this: given a certain topology for IP forwarding and turning on MPLS on it will increase the overhead (additional overhead by adding labels) and thus reduce end to end IP throughput. The lookup is done by the same algorithm (CEF) at wire speeds for IPv4 and labeled packets - there is no speed gain for either technology.
Do not get me wrong, this does not mean MPLS is "bad" and in fact the difference between pure IPv4 forwarding and MPLS forwarding is marginal and most likely irrelevant for any real environment. The advantages of MPLS are plenty and thus a marginal throughput difference is not the most important thing to consider.
I guess the idea of "switching is faster than routing" stems from the fact that there were times, when IPv4 forwarding ("routing") was done in CPU, thus was slow, whereas L2 forwarding ("switching") was done in hardware and thus was faster. It dates back to those days where we used AGS+ (an old router, which is EOS, EOL and most likely even EOeBay ;-) and f.e. Cat5000.
Now coming back to the observed behaviour in the original post there might be some reasons to explain it:
1) different L2 overhead as pointed out by Swaroop, especially as I would assume rather small average packetsizes.
2) Additional traffic on the P2P link not sent through the MPLS cloud - check your routing, if it is exactly the same for both links.
3) Measurement artefacts - as Swaroop pointed out. Is the load interval the same for both interfaces? I would rather use a packet analyzer than only go for a "show interface" to get precise values.
Hope this helps!
Regards, Martin

Mpls-te vs performance routing (PFR)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for