MPLS Traffic

Hi,
We are already having leased line for our branch office connectivity. We are planning to extend the connectivity through MPLS.
Is it possible to convert my traffic from LL to MPLS or we need to extend the connectivity with MPLS only.
Exisiting
Branch Office --> LL --> Head Office
Proposed
Branch Office --> LL --> MPLS --> MPLS Cloud --> Head Office
Also let me know to check the network latency in MPLS cloud.
Best Regards,
M.K

Hi,
What kind of traffic do you have?
You should be able to run MPLS over the LL. You can also run MPLS over the other links, extending the MPLS cloud.
To check round-trip latency, you can use IP SLA. The easiest is to just use ICMP:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/ios/12_4/ip_sla/configuration/guide/hsicmp.html
Thanks,
Luc

Similar Messages

  • What is it "tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth" !!!

    Buenas dia, Amigos!
    I want to limit the speed of the MPLS Tunnel between two sites. I'm going to create a MPLS tunnel and apply
    "tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth X"
    Can anybody answer me, it can really limit the speed or only reserve bandwidth?
    !Hasta la vista, Amigos!

    Hello Oleg,
    the command is only used during the tunnel setup and has administrative meaning. It is used by RSVP for reservation of resources.  It does not provide any form of rate control over the tunnel.
    You need to control how much traffic you put on the tunnel on the tail end router.
    Hope to help
    Giuseppe

  • Which object in RSVP message carried the value configured by "tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth" command?

    Hi Experts,
    I configured a simple MPLS TE tunnel in my routers and configured it with "tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 777" command. The tunnel came up fine. I tried to capture the packets (using GNS capture) going out of tunnel head end interface but I could not find out on which message object the value '777' is carried. Can anyone please explain me exactly in which RSVP/OSPF message the bandwidth value is carried?
    Thanks,
    Madhu

    Hello Madhu,
    I think it is FLOWSPEC object, not 100% sure
    The FLOWSPEC class is defined in RFC 2210. Cisco IOS Software requests Controlled-Load service when reserving a TE tunnel. The FLOWSPEC format is complex and has many things in it that RSVP for MPLS TE doesn't use.The FLOWSPEC is used in Resv messages—Resv, ResvTear, ResvErr, ResvConf, ResvTearConf. Its only use in MPLS TE is to use the average rate section of the FLOWSPEC to specify the bandwidth desired, in bytes. Not bits. Bytes. So if you configure a tunnel with tunnel mpls traffic-eng 100000 to request 100 Mbps of bandwidth, this gets signalled as 12,500,000 bytes per second (100 Mb is 100,000 Kb is 100,000,000 bits, which is 12,500,000 bytes).
    Hope this helps
    Regards
    Mahesh

  • "mpls traffic eng passive-interface" mapping on XR

    Dears,
    ON IOS for TE-InterAS ,the command "mpls traffic-eng passive-interface" is used on InterAS link which isn't running IGP so i am seeking for the equivlent command on XR but i can't find it so please advise what is the equivlent command on XR
    Thanks

    Hello Amr,
    There is no equivalent command on IOS-XR. Are you trying to set up Inter-AS MPLS TE on XR? In IOS-XR, inter-AS tunnels are supported only by using verbatim path-options. Verbatim path-options are supported on both IOS and IOS-XR.
    HTH,
    Rivalino

  • Tunnel mpls traffic-eng dynamic reoptimization issue

    we have a dynamic tunnel, when the LSP switches to a suboptimal path due to failure on the optimal path it does not switch back to the optimal path once the path is restored.
    How do we enable automatic reoptimization plus a threshold setting re = 5 seconds
    interface Tunnel0
    description test
    ip unnumbered Loopback0
    tunnel destination 211.1.219.6
    tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
    tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
    tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 10 dynamic

    If you do a "show mpls traffic-eng tunnels brief" you will see that the default periodic optimization is set to 1 hour (3600 seconds).
    You can use the following command to change this default timer:
    mpls traffic-eng reoptimize timers frequency
    For more information on this command, please see this URL:
    http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/swtch_r/swi_m3.htm#wp1061558
    Hope this helps,

  • What is the 'tunnel mpls traffic-en bandwidth' ?

    Hi
    I do not understand about 'mpls tunnel traffic-en bandwidth'
    If i want to use the RSVP-TE then i know i have to configure the 'ip rsvp bandwidth ...'  and 'tunnel mpls traffic-en bandwidth...'
    But why i have to configure them for TE.
    RSVP is Resource Reservation Bandwidth so i think that 'ip rsvp bandwidth' checked the available B/W in physical interface for TE and it is not the reality B/W for tunnel.
    Is it correct?
    Can you teach me them for me 'IP RSVP BANDWIDTH, TUNNEL MPLS TRAFFIC-EN BANDWIDTH'
    Thank you

    Hello Byung,
    the ip rsvp bandwidth specifies the total amount of resources available outbound an interface = total reserveable bandwidth on the link it can even bei higher then effective interface speed.
    The other command specifies the amount of bandwidth to be used in  the reservation for the specific MPLS TE tunnel and has to be lower then the first one in order for the link to be selected and used for the tunnel. If no suitable path is found the tunnel setup fails.
    To be noted the bandwidth associated to an MPLS TE Tunnel is an administrative parameter and does not reflect the effective traffic that can travel over the tunnel.
    The Call admission control is performed on the administrative bandwidth parameter not on effective user traffic.
    Hope to help
    Giuseppe

  • MPLS Traffic Shaping/Policing on PE-CE link

    Hi everyone,
    We are considering to upgrade our remote sites to MPLS/VPN type of connectivity from ATM/FRASI.
    Lets say we take a 10Mb link in the main office and 2-4Mb links for remote sites. Majority of servers (services) reside in main site, so majority of traffic flow will be from main site to remote sites.
    1. Since CE at main site sees all the remote sites "coming" from provider's PE, how can you handle traffic shaping/policing issues on this main site CE?
    2. Do you use MQC based on destination IP to apply shaping/policing configs on the CE-PE interface?
    3. Is it necessary to even bother with this question?
    Thank a lot.
    David

    BGP contains a multitude of knobs which allow a SP to control the traffic sent on one PE-CE link as opposed to the other. One can also make use of the Link Bandwidth extended community to control how traffic is distributed among multiple egress PE-CE links.
    The VPN scheme is of course compatible with the use of traffic engineering techniques (RSVP-TE based or otherwise) in the backbone network.
    A PE may support additional QoS support by means of one or more of the following methods:
    -i. One COS per PW End Service (PWES), mapped to a single COS PW at the PSN.
    -ii. Multiple COS per PWES mapped to a single PW with multiple COS at the PSN.
    -iii. Multiple COS per PWES mapped to multiple PWs at the PSN.

  • MPLS Traffic Load Sharing

    What is the best way to configure a load sharing policy from multiple CE "remotes" to two CE "hosts" in a MPLS network? Currently, all incoming traffic goes to only one host from the PE.

    Hi,
    you need to have a look at the complete routing architecture to understand possibilities/responsibilities.
    Mainly load distribution for a single prefix can only occur, if more than one path to a destination is known. This however might not be given in the MPLS network. The underlying reason is that BGP will only send the best path in an update - but not all pathes a BGP speaker knows of (RFC mandates this).
    As practically all larger BGP implementations use Route Reflectors, which are (RFC conforming) BGP speakers, they will only forward the best path to a destination. The result is:
    IF more than one path to a destination network exists and is sent to the RR through different PE routers (with same RD) then only one path will be distributed to all other PE routers.
    In this scenario load sharing for a single prefix can not occur, because only one routing table entry exists for this prefix in most if not all PE routers. All you can do is to try to load share by selecting different pathes for different destination prefixes by influencing routing metric. This way part of your traffic will go one way and part will take another path.
    IF the SP however uses different RD values for every VRF and the proper "maximum-path" statements in MP-BGP, then load sharing per prefix can be achieved in the MPLS network. The customer however can not influence the SP setup.
    Hope this Helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • How traffic is directed in MPLS network? Via ldp LSPs or via RSVP LSPs

    My question is basicly to understand how traffic is treated.
    Lets assume our topology is :
    A-----------------------------B------------------------------------C--------------------------------------------D
    1-) if we just enable MPLS under all interfaces, LDP labels are exchanged with each peer. At that moment   RIB, LIB, FIB and LFIB are created on all routers. So LDP LSPs are created dynamicly. but  If i ping "loopback D"  from router A, there will be IP routing or LABEL switching.  will routing make routing by looking IP address at each hop or labels will be swapped at each hop ?
    2-) If we enable MPLS traffic engineering capability and create a tunnel interface between router A and router D, vice versa. At that moment, Router A will have :
    -simple IGP reachability to Router D,
    -Dynamic LDP LSP  and
    -RSVP tunnel.
    what about now, Which one of the paths above  my traffic will follow ? do I have to direct my traffic to tunnel interface signaled via RSVP. Is there any precedence for choosing the path that traffic will be addressed ?

    for second secenario, i have found that I have to write
    "tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce " other wise traffic will always follow LDP signaled paths. In order to get all traffic inside "tunnel" we should execute that command.  once you write that command you see that ;
    Before executing command;
    R1#sh ip route
    O       3.3.3.3 [110/129] via 3.3.3.3, 00:07:08, serial0/0
    R1#show mpls forwarding-table
    18     18          3.3.3.3/32        0          Se0/0      point2point
    After executing command;
    R1#sh ip route
    O       3.3.3.3 [110/129] via 3.3.3.3, 00:07:08, Tunnel0
    R1#show mpls forwarding-table
    18     Pop tag [T] 3.3.3.3/32        0          Tu0        point2point 
    Hope you see my point, router doesnt decide to use RSVP signaled LSP itself, we shoud trig router to use RSVP signalled LSP.

  • MPLS TE: Fastreroute traffic switching to primary tunnel

    I have the following question regarding MPLS-TE fastreroute.
    In my scenario I have Fastreroute working perfectly, when the protected link fails traffic gets switched to the backup tunnel and when the link gets up traffic comes back to the primary tunnel. The question is... is it possible to delay the return of traffic to the primary tunnel after the protected link is up again? or even if is it possible to manually switch traffic back to the primary tunnel?
    Many thanks for your support.

    Hi,
    There is a command to do this "mpls traffic-eng tunnels reoptimize timers frequency", if you set this timer to 0 it will never reoptimize the Tunnels even after Primary link is up. The default reoptimization timer is 3600 seconds, or one hour.
    You can use "mpls traffic-engineering reoptimize" to reoptimize manually. You can either do all at once or select tunnel at a time.
    Hope this was your query...
    Edit:
    You can use "mpls traffic-eng reoptimize" to reoptimize manually. :-)
    Thanks
    Cheers
    ~sultan

  • 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

  • MPLS TE equal or unequal load balancing doesn't work? - step2

    Previous question in thread:
    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?
    But this answer does not solved my issue:
    hritter - Network Consulting Engineer, CISCO SYSTEMS, CCIE
    Aug 4, 2004, 7:20am PST
    This is expected behavior since CEF is used at the head end to perform label imposition. I wouldn't recommend changing the default bahavior to per=packet loadsharing since this could lead to of of sequence packets, which could lower the overall performance.
    Hope this helps,
    so my secound question:
    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

    The per session load-balancing is also used by MPLS when multiple paths are available. Changing this behavior to per-packet is still not recommended.
    Hope this helps,

  • Policy based routing on VRF interfaces to route traffic through TE Tunnel

    Hi All,
    Is there a method to do policy based routing on VRF interfaces and route data traffic through one TE tunnel and non-data traffic through another TE tunnel.
    The tunnel is already build up with these below config
    interface Tunnel25
    ip unnumbered Loopback0
    tunnel destination 10.250.16.250
    tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
    tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 10 explicit name test
    ip explicit-path name test enable
    next-address x.x.x.x
    next-address y.y.y.y
    router ospf 1
    mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0
    mpls traffic-eng area 0
    mpls traffic-eng tunnels
    nterface GigabitEthernet5/2
    mpls traffic-eng tunnels
    mpls ip
    Is there additional config needed to work ,also in the destination end for the return traffic,we want to use the normal PATH --I mean non TE tunnel.
    We tested with the above scenario,but couldn't able to reach the destination.Meantime we had a question,when the packet uses the policy map while ingress,it may not know the associatuion with VRF(Is that right? --If so ,how to make it happen)
    Any help would be really appreciated
    Thanks
    Regards
    Anantha Subramanian Natarajan

    hi Anantha!
    I might not be the right person to comment on your first question. I have not configured MVPNs yet and not very confertable with the topic.
    But I am sure that if you read through the CBTS doc thoroughly, you might be able to derive the answer yourself. One thing I notice is that " a Tunnel will be selected regularly according to the routing process (even isf it is cbts enabled). From the tunnels selected using the regular best path selection, the traffic is mapped to a perticular tunnel in the group if specific class is mapped to that tunnel.
    So a master tunnel can be the only tunnel between the 2 devices over which the routing (bgp next hops) are exchanged and all other tunnels can be members of this tunnel. So your RPF might not fail.
    You might have to explore on this a bit more and read about the co-existance of multicast and TE. This will be the same as that.
    For your second question, the answer would be easy :
    If you want a specific eompls cust to take a particular tunnel/path, just create a seperate pair of loopbacks on the PEs. Make the loopback learnt on the remote PE through the tunnel/path that you want the eompls to take. Then establish the xconnect with this loopback. I am assuming that your question is that a particular eompls session should take a particular path.
    If you meant that certain traffic from the same eompls session take a different path/tunnel, then CBTS will work.
    Regards,
    Niranjan

  • Load-balancing in MPLS Core

    How is load-balancing achieved in MPLS L3 vpns and equal cost multiple links exist to reach egress PE along with per-destination load-balancing enabled on interfaces.
    I have tried to simulate the network below
    Ingress PE--->P1--->>P2--->Egress PE
    Multiple equal cost links exist between P1 and P2, cisco platform,LDP, IGP-ospf being used.

    Hi,
    Destination based load balancing in MPLS L3VPNs can be categorized into two scenarios:
    1) multiple pathes between two PE routers
    2) multiple access links to a single CE or site
    Your question as I understand it was about the first scenario. So let me first quickly review how customer traffic is forwarded between VRFs on two different PE routers.
    The VRF routing table will have BGP entries for the routes learned from the remote PE usually with next hop addresses being the remote PE loopback IP used for PE-to-PE BGP peering.
    The traffic will be forwarded across P routers using the label for the BGP next hop.
    Thus the load balancing accross the MPLS core in a first step is decided by the IGP, which has to insert several equal cost pathes into the global routing table for the BGP next hop networks (PE loopbacks).
    Side note: MPLS traffic engineering in the core would allow for unequal cost load balancing.
    The decision, which labeled packet to send across which path in the core is done by CEF using a hash algorithm. To achieve the same load balancing as with unlabeled IP traffic, a Cisco MPLS enabled router will look for the bottom label - the one with bottom-of-stack bit set to 1 - and try to determine, if the transported packet behind the bottom label is IP. If so, the hash is calculated for the customer IP header like for normal IP traffic. This ensures all traffic for a certain customer destination will always go through the same path. No unwanted packet reordering will occur.
    Be aware, that the customer IP packet header will only be used for CEF hash calculation, no IP lookup will be performed, as core routers in MPLS L3VPNs do not have any knowledge about customer addresses.
    As a side note: if the traffic transported is not IP (e.g. Ethernet over MPLS), the bottom label will be used for the CEF load balancing (e.g. the VC label).
    For the second scenario - CE load balancing with multihomed CE/sites - it is first required to have two equal cost entries in the VRF routing tables. The difference will be the two different PE BGP next hop addresses. The first load balancing decision is the performed by CEF based on the IP packet received by the CE and the VRF routing table entries. Once CEF decided, which VRF entry to use, the required BGP next hop label (and the VPN label) is applied and the packet is transported across the MPLS core. load balancing there is done as described above.
    Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • MPLS TE load-balancing --- CEF Problem

    Dears
    Would like your assistance please regarding below issue
    We are having 5 TE tunnels going to same destination and we are doing load-balancing between these 5 LSPs TE tunnels.
    Command "mls ip cef load-sharing full simple" is configured so that CEF will use L4 ports in its algorithm
    Problem that due to CEF behavior, 2 link are v.highly utilized and the other 3 utilization are below average
    What I am thinking of but not sure If this will help or not is to have 2 TE tunnels instead of 5
    1 TE tunnel load balancing on 3 links ( This can be done by using static route to tail loopback poiting to the 3 links) and another TE tunnel load balancing on the other 2 links
    By doing this, I think CEF would be used 2 times; first to determine which TE tunnel to use then to determine which link within the tunnel
    Will this help ?
    For example
    interface Tunnel1
    ip unnumbered Loopback0
    mpls ip
    tunnel destination 10.0.0.1
    tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
    tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
    tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic
    tunnel mpls traffic-eng fast-reroute
    ip route 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 link-1
    ip route 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 link-2
    ip route 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 link-3

    Hello Sherif,
    traffic of a single TE tunnel will not be load balanced over multiple physical links as the TE tunnel is setup using a reservation and the path will use only one link for each router hop.
    So moving to two TE tunnels is not an option for you.
    Hope to help
    Giuseppe

Maybe you are looking for