MPLS TEs

Hi guys,
I was wondering if someone could shed some light and clarify the following questions:
1. When building TE LSPs with dynamic path selection, you can use TE weights instead of IGP costs. Assuming you do that and the path chosen is completely different from the path that would have been chosen if you used IGP metric, will the cost of going through the tunnel still be IGP cost from head to tail?
2. If you have two possible paths to use from head to tail, TE docs state that LSP is built via the one having lowest cost to go over it. Is that once again IGP cost regardless of the fact if TE LSPs are actually configured to use TE weights?
3. Autoroute only sets routing for LSP headend, while Forwarding Ajecency does that for every router. what if you redistribute statics on headend with autoroute enabled, will you be getting the same results as FA?
I am asking because FAs require bi-directional tunnels, which create administrative burden to implement rather than unidirectional ones sufficient for Autoroute.
4. TE docs say that "you will never loadbalance between TE path and IGP path for tunnel end". What do they mean "tunnel end" in this case? Are these all connected interfaces of a router where TE LSP terminates or is this a specific IP configured as "tunnel destination" on tunnel headend?
5. Let's say you have TE tunnel A -> B with C being "behind" B. Let's also assume that TE tunnel is configured to use IGP for path selection. In this case as far as TE is concerned the path to get to C is a path from A to B (IGP cost from A to B) and IGP cost from B to C. But that's the same as just IGP cost from A to C! Will there be loadbalancing between IGP and TE paths in this case?
It would also appear that this is a pretty much common setup, so is it true to assume that if you don't touch TE metrics on the tunnel by using "tunnel autoroute metric" you will ALWAYS loadbalance between IGP and TE paths?
Thanks,
David

David, A few answers below. I am sure others will correct me if I am slightly off the mark.
1 - Metrics on tunnel headends will be seen for Autoroute tunnels. It is the best IGP metric to the Tunnel Deistination, which is seen in the table.
A TE tunnel with same metric as an IGP path is always preffered - Answers later questions.
2 - CSPF uses TE weights or metrics, by default, when calculating the path. This can be overridden. By default TE metric is same as interface metric.
3 - I believe FA bidirectional check helps ensure one way LSPs are not advertised into the IGP. It is a case of having an LSP in each direction. You do not need additional tunnels.
4 - What is reachable through the tunnel.
5 - Answered above.

Similar Messages

  • Best practice MPLS design/configuration for small service provider

    We are a small regional service provider and did not have MPLS supported on our network.  To start supporting MPLS, I’d like to get opinions and recommendations on the best practice configuration. 
    Here is what we have today –
    We have our own BGP AS and multiple /24s.
    We are running OSPF on the Cores and BGP on the Edge routers peering with ISPs.
    We peer with multiple tier-1 ISPs for internet traffic. We do not provide public transit.
    What we want for phase one MPLS implementation –
    Configure basic MPLS /vpn functionality.
    No QoS optimization required for phase 1.
    We have Cisco ME 3600X for  PE. Any recommendations will be appreciated.

    Not sure what kind of devices or routers you have in your network but looks for if you have support for labeled multicast for MVPN support. That will avoid other complexity of using other control protocols (like PIM) in core.
    PE redundancy can be obtained by BGP attributes, CE-PE connectivity can be tunned using IGP or VRRP/HSRP...
    You can have mutiple RSVP TEs for various contract traffic and you can bind various kind of traffic to different RSVP Tunnels based on contract or service with your customer.
    RSVP-TE with link/node protection design will be of great help to achieve quicker failover.

  • Building from MPL sources

    Hi All,
    We need to customize some classes contained in rpc.swc.
    To avoid any potential licensing hassles, I decided to try building it from the MPL sources available for download at http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Download+Flex+3
    So I downloaded and unzipped flex_sdk_3.3.0.4852_mpl.zip, set JAVA_HOME and ANT_HOME, and invoked the build.xml.
    I get the following error:
    D:\flex_sdk_3.3.0.4852_mpl>%ANT_HOME%\bin\ant
    Buildfile: build.xml
    create-description:
    templates-clean:
    prepare-html-templates:
    BUILD FAILED
    D:\flex_sdk_3.3.0.4852_mpl\build.xml:1155: Warning: Could not find file D:\flex_sdk_3.3.0.4852_mpl\templates\html-templa
    tes\metadata\AC_OETags.js to copy.
    It looks as though the directory structure of what's in flex_sdk_3.3.0.4852_mpl.zip doesn't match the SVN tag for 3.3.0.4852, which causes the build to fail. (templates\html-templates\metadata exists in SVN bud not in the MPL zip distribution)
    From what I can gather, the source code in SVN http://opensource.adobe.com/svn/opensource/flex/sdk/ contains both MPL licensed and proprietary code, correct?
    Does this mean that if I want to make modifications to the MPL licensed code as distributed by Adobe, I need to write and maintain my own build files?
    I would expect that since flex_sdk_3.3.0.4852_mpl.zip contains a build.xml file, it should work out of the box... if it doesn't, maybe you should remove it so that there is no expectation created that the MPL zip distribution contains more than just source code.
    In the meantime, I guess I need to check out from SVN both the MPL and non-MPL licensed code and then be forced to audit (or cross my fingers) that I'm not violating any licenses with what I'm modifying/redistributing.
    Any thoughts/suggestions on this issue?
    Thanks,
    Frank Grimes

    Can you file a bug on the SDK not rebuilding correctly from the MPL zip?  We probably only tested on the Adobe version.  I don't remember the targets in the build file, but the templates aren't that big a deal, you can probably just look through and see what builds the SWCs and just run that target and still accomplish what you need.
    However, you can edit any source code in Subversion without fear of mixing licenses, since any source you see in Subversion is MPL.  It's only the binaries that we check in that wouldn't be under MPL.
    Matt

  • In our enterprise MPLS network we are using 192.168.20.0/24 subnet, in this subnet we have not assigned the IP 192.168.20.200/30 & 204/30, But still these subnets are reachable . Are these NNI IP ...Please explain.

    In our enterprise MPLS network we are using 192.168.20.0/24 subnet, in this subnet we have not assigned the IP 192.168.20.200/30 & 204/30, But still these subnets are reachable . Are these NNI IP ...Please explain.

    I have checked with ISP, there response is like below:
    Those are the NNI to GBNET IPs for Dominican Republic. They are Network IPs. You should be able to ping them-that means they are working.
    WANRT01#show  ip route | include 192.168.20.20
    B        192.168.20.200/30 [20/0] via 192.168.20.226, 02:18:29
    B        192.168.20.204/30 [20/0] via 192.168.20.226, 02:18:29
    Here its shows from any of our MPLS site we are able to trace the IP and it seems like, 192.168.20.204/30 is one more site but in actual its not.
    INMUMWANRT01#ping 192.168.20.205
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.20.205, timeout is 2 seconds:
    Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 224/232/260 ms
    INMUMWANRT01#trace              
    INMUMWANRT01#traceroute 192.168.20.205
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Tracing the route to 192.168.20.205
    VRF info: (vrf in name/id, vrf out name/id)
      1 192.168.20.226 24 msec 24 msec 24 msec
      2 192.168.20.206 [AS 8035] 232 msec 232 msec 252 msec
      3 192.168.20.205 [AS 8035] 224 msec 224 msec *

  • Asa 5505 site to site VPN between A to B site, then B site MPLS to internal network

    Dear all
    I am setting up site to site VPN between two site A to B site.  Two local site of A and B are connected fine.  however for my site B have another internal MPLS to other site.  The connection fine from LAN A all the way to LAN B MPLS router, but it cannot be connect to other MPLS site.  If I did the MPLS traceroute from other site.  It can be reached of LAN B internal router.  Therefore, I am confusing which part of my configuration go wrong and any document for my reference.  Thank you very much.
    Local LAN A (5505 ASA)---------(5505 ASA) Local LAN B-----------B Internal router---------B MPLS router-------------other site.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Dear Harish
    for LAN B MPLS.  All 11.20.0.0/16 will route to LAN B internal router 10.14.128.252
    If traceroute from other 11.0.0.0 site to 11.20.128.250, it can reach until LAN B ASA 11.14.127.223
    11.20.128.250                        11.14.128.223                           11.14.128.252           11.14.128.253              11.0.0.0
    Local LAN A (5505 ASA)---------(5505 ASA) Local LAN B-----------B Internal router---------B MPLS router-------------other site.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    if traceroute from 10.20.0.0, it can reach until LAN B MPLS router 11.14.128.253
    For config file post.  Can I have your email address to direct send to you.  Thank you very much.

  • ASA 5505 to allow 2nd network segment through mpls

    I have been having a heck of a time trying to configure my 5505 to allow the second segment on my network to use the internet.
    Office 1 has a fiber internet connection, and all traffic flows fine.
    Office 2 had gotten it's internet from AT&T, via a network based firewall injecting a default route into the mpls cloud.
    both offices connunicate to each other through the mpls.
    When we added the fiber to office 1, we had the mpls people change the default internet route to the inside address of the 5505 and things worked fine.
    when AT&T attempted to remove the NBF defaut route, and inject the 5505's address as default, things didn't go so well.
    AT&T claims that it is within my nat cmmands on the 5505, but won't tell me anything else.  I assume that they are correct, and I assume that I am not good enough with the 5505 ASDM to tell it what to do.
    Office 1 uses 10.10.30.xx addresses and Office 2 uses 10.10.10.xx - the 5505 inside interface is 10.10.30.2 the internal interfaces of the mpls are 10.10.30.1 and 10.10.10.1
    I don't know what other information you would need, but am stuck here at Office 1 until I can get this working.
    Thanks

    Hi,
    Ok, so IF I have not understood anything wrong (which is still possible ), it would seem to me that the network mask of the ASA is atleast one reason that will cause problems for WI LAN if they try to use the Internet through the ASA5505 on the PA site.
    This is what I would presume will happen when a host on the WI LAN initiates a connection to the Internet
    WI PC 10.10.10.10 sends a TCP SYN to initiate/open a TCP connection with a Web server on the Internet
    The TCP SYN gets forwarded to the default gateway of the PC which is 10.10.10.1
    The TCP SYN packet traverses the ISP MPLS network all the way to the PA Site
    The PA Site 3900 has a default route probably towards PA ASA 10.10.30.2
    TCP SYN gets forwarded from the PA 3900 to the PA ASA according to the above mentioned default route on the PA 3900
    TCP SYN arrives on the ASA and gets forwarded to the Internet
    TCP SYN,ACK from the Web server arrives on the ASA
    ASA will ARP for the MAC address of the WI PC IP address of 10.10.10.10 because it thinks that the host is directly connected to the ASAs "inside" interface because of the "inside" interfaces large /16 network mask which contains addresses between 10.10.0.0 - 10.10.255.255
    The ARP request sent from the ASA never receives a reply since the WI PC isnt directly connected
    PA ASA will never be able to forward the traffic to the WI PC which is trying to open the connection to the Internet because of the above mentioned problem. Therefore the TCP connection from WI PC never succeeds and timeouts.
    Now you might ask, why does the connections between the PA and WI LAN work. To my understanding is that because the traffic from the PA hosts gets first forwarded to the PA 3900 then they have a working route to the WI LAN. The same way the WI LAN has a working route towards the PA LAN since the ASA isnt not involed in anyway.
    The PA Internet connection naturally works as the 10.10.30.0/24 hosts are directly connected to the ASA so the above mentioned ARP will not fail on their part and traffic is forwarded just fine between the PA LAN and the Internet.
    So to my understanding the solution to this problem would be to change the PA ASA "inside" subnet mask from 255.255.0.0 to 255.255.255.0.
    If you are unsure of the of this change I would suggest you do it when there is low network use (so you can revernt the change) Naturally if you are on the PA LAN then you can probably access the Console connection if something were to go wrong. I cant see any configurations on the PA ASA which would imply that you configure the device remotely through the Internet.
    Hope I made sense and hope this helps
    Naturally ask more if needed
    - Jouni

  • 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

  • Problems setting up MPLS

    A Chairde,
    Am having problems setting up MPLS between a AS5350 and 7609 , I have used commands stated in this link, enable MPLS incrementally on a network.
    http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/switch_c/xcprt4/xcdtagc.pdf
    The commands below are added to each router, and some troubleshooting.
    7609
    ip cef distributed
    interface Loopback0
    ip address 192.168.254.1 255.255.255.255
    tag-switching advertise-tags
    interface GigabitEthernet3/12
    ip address 192.168.230.162 255.255.255.248
    mpls label protocol tdp
    tag-switching ip
    AS5350
    ip cef
    mpls label protocol tdp
    tag-switching advertise-tags
    interface Loopback0
    ip address 192.168.254.2 255.255.255.255
    interface FastEthernet0/0
    ip address 192.168.230.161 255.255.255.248
    duplex auto
    speed auto
    mpls ip
    h323-gateway voip interface
    h323-gateway voip id cnibhco111 ipaddr 192.168.230.129 1719
    h323-gateway voip h323-id cnibhco112
    h323-gateway voip tech-prefix 71401
    h323-gateway voip tech-prefix 0030
    h323-gateway voip bind srcaddr 192.168.230.161
    ip rsvp bandwidth 64 64
    cnibhco112#sh tag-switching tdp neighbor
    Peer TDP Ident: 192.168.254.1:0; Local TDP Ident 192.168.230.161:0
    TCP connection: 192.168.254.1.49842 - 192.168.230.161.711
    State: Oper; PIEs sent/rcvd: 18/23; Downstream
    Up time: 00:12:54
    TDP discovery sources:
    FastEthernet0/0, Src IP addr: 192.168.230.162
    Addresses bound to peer TDP Ident:
    192.168.100.17 192.168.100.25 159.107.212.49 172.16.8.81
    192.168.230.130 192.168.230.77 192.168.230.81 192.168.254.1
    192.168.210.6 192.168.127.6 192.168.210.106 192.168.127.66
    192.168.127.138 192.168.210.146 192.168.210.142 192.168.210.122
    192.168.210.17 192.168.230.140 192.168.230.26 192.168.230.74
    192.168.230.10 192.168.230.14 192.168.127.130 192.168.127.142
    192.168.230.6 192.168.230.70 192.168.230.34 192.168.210.178
    192.168.200.25 192.168.210.126 192.168.232.1 192.168.231.1
    192.168.200.17 192.168.210.102 190.168.200.245 190.168.200.225
    190.168.201.241 192.168.230.98 192.168.210.14 190.168.201.201
    190.168.201.209 192.168.210.162 192.168.210.210 190.168.201.205
    192.168.230.38 190.168.200.249 190.168.200.217 190.168.200.253
    192.168.230.162
    cnibhco112#
    cnibhco112#sh tag-switching forwarding-table 192.168.254.1 detail
    Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
    tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
    cnibhco112#traceroute 192.168.254.1
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Tracing the route to 192.168.254.1
    1 192.168.230.162 0 msec 0 msec *
    cnibhco112#traceroute 192.168.230.162
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Tracing the route to 192.168.230.162
    1 192.168.230.162 0 msec 0 msec *
    cnibhco112#

    Ro,
    Thanks for the respone, have been playin, with MPLS for last few hours.
    The routing between the loopbacks is now working, can PING 7609 Loopback from AS5350 ,and vice versa. (used static routes).
    Having problem with TDP / LDP on routers,
    mpls label protocol ldp / tdp command works correctly on both routers, but the
    tag-switching tdp router-id Loopback0 force
    command works on the 7609, but when I add it onto the AS5350 , the command "mpls ldp router-id Loopback0 force" appears on the startup script.
    The opposite is true for the 7609 , you add MPLS LDP command, and TAG-SWITCHING command appears instead.
    Any Ideas, as different configs of this leave me with forwarding table with both tags added, but not been able to ping the loopbacks !!!
    When I can ping bot loopbacks, the OUTGOING TAG , disapears.....
    Problem is LOOPBACK Commands on bot routers default to LDP (AS5350) , or TDP (7609). Any Ideas ...
    mpls label protocol tdp
    tag-switching tdp router-id Loopback0 force
    mpls label protocol tdp
    mpls ldp router-id Loopback0 force
    cnibhco100#sh tag-switching forwarding-table 192.168.254.2 detail
    Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Ho
    tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
    18 17 192.168.254.0/24 0 Gi3/12 192.168.2
    MAC/Encaps=14/18, MRU=1500, Tag Stack{17}
    00097CA3293000127FCDBA808847 00011000
    No output feature configured
    Per-packet load-sharing
    cnibhco100#traceroute 192.168.254.2
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Tracing the route to 192.168.254.2
    1 192.168.230.161 [MPLS: Label 17 Exp 0] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
    2 192.168.230.162 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
    But no PINGING 192.168.254.2
    cnibhco112#sh tag-switching forwarding-table 192.168.254.1 detail
    Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
    tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
    17 18 192.168.254.0/24 1915668 Fa0/0 192.168.230.162
    MAC/Encaps=14/18, MRU=1500, Tag Stack{18}
    00127FCDBA8000097CA329308847 00012000
    No output feature configured
    Per-packet load-sharing
    cnibhco100#sh tag-switching forwarding-table 192.168.254.2 detail
    Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Ho
    tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
    18 17 192.168.254.0/24 752551 Gi3/12 192.168.2
    MAC/Encaps=14/18, MRU=1500, Tag Stack{17}
    00097CA3293000127FCDBA808847 00011000
    No output feature configured
    Per-packet load-sharing
    WHEN BOTH LOCAL AND OUTGOING TAG, CANNOT PING EITHER WAY !!!
    HAVE LABEL PROTOCOL AND LOOPBACK FORCE on AS5350
    HAVE LABEL PROTOCOL ON 7609
    WHEN ADD LOOPBACK FORCE on 7609 , CAN PING BOTH LOOPBACKS,
    BUT OUTGOING TAG DISAPEARS
    cnibhco112#PING 192.168.254.2
    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.254.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
    Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
    cnibhco112#sh tag-switching forwarding-table 192.168.254.1 detail
    Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
    tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
    17 Untagged 192.168.254.0/24 598678 Fa0/0 192.168.230.162
    MAC/Encaps=0/0, MRU=1504, Tag Stack{}
    No output feature configured
    Per-packet load-sharing
    cnibhco112#
    mpls label protocol tdp
    tag-switching tdp router-id Loopback0 force

  • Performance end to end testing and comparison between MPLS VPN and VPLS VPN

    Hi,
    I am student of MSc Network Security and as for my project which is " Comparison between MPLS L3 VPN and VPLS VPN, performance monitoring by end to end testing " I have heard a lot of buzz about VPLS as becoming NGN, I wanted to exppore that and produce a comparison report of which technology is better. To accomplish this I am using GNS3, with respect to the MPLS L3 VPN lab setup that is not a problem but I am stuck at the VPLS part how to setup that ? I have searched but unable to find any cost effective mean, even it is not possible in the university lab as we dont have 7600 series
    I would appreciate any support, guidence, advice.
    Thanks
    Shahbaz

    Hi Shahbaz,
    I am not completely sure I understand your request.
    MPLS VPN and VPLS are 2 technologies meant to address to different needs, L3 VPN as opposed as L2 VPN. Not completely sure how you would compare them in terms of performance. Would you compare the performance of a F1 racing car with a Rally racing car?
    From the ISP point of view there is little difference (if we don't want to consider the specific inherent peculiarities of each technology) , as in the very basic scenarios we can boil down to the following basic operations for both:
    Ingress PE impose 2 labels (at least)
    Core Ps swap top most MPLS label
    Egress PE removes last label exposing underlying packet or frame.
    So whether the LSRs deal with underlying L2 frames or L3 IP packets there is no real difference in terms of performance (actually the P routers don't even notice any difference).
    About simulators, I am not aware of anyone able to simulate a L2 VPN (AtoM or VPLS).
    Riccardo

  • MPLS from a customer view

    Scenario: I have thirty locations with one data center and one dr site. Each location has two pvcs. One for the data center one for the DR site. Question: If we switch to a MPLS network. It would be transparent to the because the router at each location would be a CE router or non-LSR. The provider would handle all the MPLS configuration. I hope this make sense.

    Yes, you are absolutely right.
    When we deployed MPLS at our domain, nothing had to be done at the CPEs. No changes had to be done at the CPEs templates. To our customers it's transparent the way we do packet forwarding. They don't have any idea that we do label switch instead of layer 3 forwarding.
    If you are moving to a MPLS-enabled carrier, you may contract a MPLS-enabled VPN service. With that you may have just one pvc at each site (if you need save some $$), or you may ask for a active & backup/standby pvc scheme. MPLS give to network administrator all flexibility to deploy any kind of connectivity request.
    Yours Truly.
    Murilo Pugliese.

  • MPLS in the Enterprise

    Has any had any experience with using MPLS in the Enterprise? I would like to use MPLS to segment the different parts of my network. I basically have 4 different user bases at remote locations and several others including development in the corporate areas. I would like to use MPLS between all of my sites and basically have my current router act as the PE with the different interfaces be different sudo customers. Then once I have this set up I can use a firewall to touch each MPLS vrf to redistribute networks to the other networks so it appears that it is one big network but I then would have a single location to be able to administer policy and rules as to who can talk to who. I would like to hear if any one has done this and what problems and or benefits they received from doing this approach. I know it may seem like over kill but it would give me a definitive answer to say yes an out break of a virus on one segment would not be able to affect another vrf if they rules and what not were in place.

    Hi there,
    we run three sites with a pair of 7200 PE's at each site. This allows us to get our security partioned networks to all three sites very cost effectively.
    But beware, setting up basic VPN's is relatively easy compared to setting up tunnels and traffic engineering.

  • Centralize internet access in MPLS VPN

    Can i implement Centralize internet access (the Hub CE Router to performs NAT) in cisco MPLS VPN solution?
    If so, is there any example about that? i can't find it at CCO~
    Thanks a lot~

    If you run dynamic routing protocol in PE-CE,like rip2,ospf,bgp,do the following task.
    1:set a default route in HUB CE;and generate the default route under its dynamic protocol.
    2:in other CEs, make sure they can learn this route.
    If you run static route and vrf static route between CE and PE,do the following task.
    1.set default route in HUB CE, and set default route in other CEs.
    2.In all PEs,redistribute the connected and static rotues to address-family ipv4 of customer vrf.
    3.set the customer vrf default route in all PE which connected your all CEs.
    Note: make sure all PEs can reach the GW address of vrf deafult route. GW IP address is the interface of which HUB CE towards PE.
    command: "ip route vrf 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 global.
    TRY

  • Hotline is not working after migrating to MPLS

    Hi,
    I am facing one new problem, after migrating with MPLS link my customer not able to make calls. If he connecting to Leased Line then its working(OLD LINE). In data also we faced same problem, after removing the TCP Compression then only data also start to work. If any body aware of this type of problem can you please help me.
    Regards,
    Sunish

    The warranty entitles you to complimentary phone support for the first 90 days of ownership.

  • Need suggestion whether to use ATM or MPLS in DSL implementation

    Presently i am working in ISP, and we are providing internet access via simple dialup, ISDN and IVS. and now we want to implement DSL i ve talk with few peoples regarding whether to use ATM or MPLS in DSL implementation but because they are solution providers so i think they are giving me expensive solution. as long as i know about this is,whole world is shifting from ATM to MPLS Technology. ATM implementation cost is very high. so i need suggestion from u because you also have practical exposure.

    I believe ATM is soon getting obsolete...

  • MPLS TE equal or unequal load balancing doesn't work?

    Dear Sir!
    I've two MPLS TE tunnels from one PE to another PE.
    And there are traffic share count between them
    (as tunnel mpls traffic-eng load-share command define).
    But in real life all traffic from the same source to the same destination go through only one tunnel
    (as CEF define - i.e. how sh ip cef exact-route says).
    PEs are 3660 platforms with c3660-jk9o3s-mz.123-8.T
    installed.
    How can I correct this problem?
    Best regards,
    Maxim Denisov

    Dear Sir!
    I'm agree with you as MPLS TE tunnels are opened from PE to PE, so CEF does it work.
    But if I open this tunnels from P to PE, ONLY ONE of this tunnels are used instead of load-sharing, if traffic go from one source (of site1 of VPN1) to the same destination (located at site2 of VPN1).
    Why? Packet through P-devices swithes by labels, so I mean that CEF cannot does src-dst load sharing?
    My problem are that I must to do load sharing between this two tunnels in the case above.
    Q: How can I solve this problem?
    Best regards,
    Maxim Denisov

Maybe you are looking for