Traffic Classification in GSM MPLS Backbone

Hi Experts,
can anyone share how traffic classification is done in the backbone of a 3G GSM operator? I mean, how we should map voice, Gn, Gi, etc. traffic into DSCP? Or maybe can anyone point me to a document that can be reference for this?
Thanks,
Prima

Typically your provider should provide you with the provisioning of the queues that they have, and what DSCP values they want to see for each of the queues. Generally speaking, for MPLS, you use:
EF - real time traffic (voice media)
AF31 - voice control
AF41 - video

Similar Messages

Can I send bridge traffic over MPLS backbone?

Can someone let me know if bridging can be done across a MPLS backbone? If yes, please provide a brief config sample or let me know where I can find documentation. Thanks

You can provide Ethernet over MPLS. The configuration can depend on platform - here is a configuration guide for the 7600 series:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5013/products_feature_guide09186a0080088187.html
EoMPLS is also on 12000 and 10720:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120limit/120s/120s22/12s10k.htm
For 7200, 7500, and 12000 series, you can do port mode EoMPLS:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120limit/120s/120s25/atom25s.htm

After upgraded to MPLS backbone -- urgent !!!!!!!!

After my ISP upgrade their backbone to MPLS we have a internet brower issue wide across my LAN. Some PCs can not brower internet, but some PCs in the same segment can!!!
I do a NAM trace found a HTTP error
" IP packet size limited during capture: HTTP truncated".
Later we tried decrease local pc MTU to 500 it works, they can brower the site which do not open previouly. But still the problems is some PCs local MTU setting is 1300 is working fine ???!!
I really confused?? Is it a MPLS issue or it is my local router setting? Since I have not make any change on my site recently?
Need your help.
Thanks

When there are MTU issues, the reason why some machines will have access and not others are severals.
- The OS version: newer OSes have the tcp pmtu discovery on by default
- The best way to do a test for MTU issues is with pings and the DF bit set up (with the -f in Windows or "-M do" in *nix)
You can use the "ip tcp adjust-mss " but me, as a customer, would not accept it.
There are numerous discussions and examples on why not to accept MTU < 1500 for an enterprise. Most people can live with micro MTUs and most of us do (i.e. in our broadband connections).
Each time you have to encapsulate your traffic (i.e. MPLS, GRE, IPSec, L2TP) you will be forced to reduce the effective MTU. Now, if you, as an enterprise, have an MTU < 1500, you will start subtracting from it and the smaller the MTU the grater the overhead in bulk transfers. It is quite complicated to explain, but you will be experiencing and effective bandwidth loss for your bulk transmissions. (See NANOG discussions in this issue as well as numerous reports in ACM/IEEE Transaction of Networking)
Finally, since not all third party devices support the MSS adjustment, the carrier will be forcing some customer to upgrade their infrastructure. Not everyone will have the means to upgrade their infrastructure because the carrier decides to change something.
Hope this give you some ideas.
-W

MPLS backbone to support ipv6

Folks,
We currently have MPLS backbone comprised of about 12 routers in the core. We could like to implement support for IPV6. Has anyone implemented this in their MPLS network yet. I know very few providers have deployed ipv6 support on their MPLS network. Could someone point out areas I should be focussing on to make this happen?
Thanks,
Parwal

I appreciate your response to my questions. I had another question for you. I will surely rate this post.
I have 7600's and 7500's in my backbone and 7200's on the edge. My question is that when look at the feature navigator the 7600 with Sup 720 is missing a of basic features required to be a core router of an MPLS Backbone. Features like Traffic engineering fast reroute, MPLS enabled Netflow and missing for this platform, is this platform not a good candidate to be a Backbone router of a service provider offering MPLS services??? 7500 on the other hand seems to have support for the MPLS related features. Please give me your advice, i would highly appreciate it.

Catalyst 2950-EMI, QoS, traffic classification and shaping

Dear All,
Can 2950-EMI perform traffic classification and shaping?
Let's say I have some workstations attached on my 2950 and I want to perform traffic classification and shaping on the uplink based on the IP address of workstations.
Thanks a lot.
mak

Shaping is not supported. But you can classify and use policing instead.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat2950/12120ea2/2950scg/swqos.htm

DLSW+ Traffic Classification

I have two Ethernet segments and pair of DLSW+ routers between them. I would like to implement traffic classification, but all my traffic flows through high or low priority queues. Why ?
sap-priority-list 1 normal smac 0000.3049.d7f0
dlsw local-peer peer-id 172.16.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 172.16.1.3 priority
dlsw bridge-group 1 sap-priority 1
R1#sho dlsw pe
Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP uptime
TCP 172.16.1.3
High priority CONNECT 4627 359 conf 0 1 0 00:25:00
Medium priority CONNECT 0 0 conf 0 - 0 00:25:00
Normal priority CONNECT 0 0 conf 0 - 0 00:25:00
Low priority CONNECT 8 6 conf 0 - 0 00:25:00
Total number of connected peers: 1
Total number of connections: 4
Many thanks.
P.S. 0000.3049.d7f0 (noncanonical format) is MAC address of Ethernet connected host.

For data traffic generation I use IPX & IP ping. It's not real SNA traffic, but it is the best I can get. There are no errors in MAC address because only one device is connected to Ethernet port on R1 and I see this MAC in show dlsw reachability local.
R1#sho dlsw ci det
Index local addr(lsap) remote addr(dsap) state uptime
1476395013 0000.3049.d7f0(AA) 00a0.bbcf.0f10(AA) CKT_ESTABLISHED -
PCEP: 813054C8 UCEP: 813060FC
Port:TB1 peer 172.16.1.3(2065)
Flow-Control-Tx CW:22, Permitted:35; Rx CW:22, Granted:36; Op: Incr
Congestion: Low(02), Flow Op: Half: 0/0 Reset 0/0
RIF = --no rif--
3959422982 0000.3049.d7f0(E0) 00a0.bbcf.0f10(E0) CKT_ESTABLISHED -
PCEP: 8102D208 UCEP: 81306480
Port:TB1 peer 172.16.1.3(2065)
Flow-Control-Tx CW:21, Permitted:32; Rx CW:21, Granted:32; Op: Incr
Congestion: Low(02), Flow Op: Half: 0/0 Reset 0/0
RIF = --no rif--

How does QoS work with WAAS WCCP? What's the interaction between QoS Traffic Classification and WAE Traffic Application Policy?

How does QoS work with WAAS WCCP? What's the interaction between Router QoS Traffic Classification and WAE Traffic Application Policy?

By default, WAAS preserves the DSCP marking on intercepted packets. There is a configuration option to set/override the DSCP value at the global (device), application, and classifier levels. Currently WAAS provides marking only. There is no action taken by WAAS based on the DSCP value.
Regards,
Zach

Can I use EIGRP as a MPLS Backbone IGP

Hi,
Always believed MPLS only runs on IS-IS and OSPF as backbone IGP. Is it possible to use EIGRP as a backbone IGP as well?
My customer uses EIGRP right now and we want to migrate VRF-lite to a real MPLS cloud. Can I re-use EIGRP?
Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,
For plain MPLS, there is no restriction that you need OSPF or ISIS. But when you plan to implement MPLS TE, you need a link state protocol. So if you dont have any plan to go for Traffic Engg, I think you can continue with EIGRP.
HTH,
Nagendra

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.

Voice video traffic classification

Hi All,
A simple query.
With Cisco ios NBAR, when we say 'match protocol rtp video' , do we also match the audio embedded in the video stream ? .. or does that audio get matched only with the 'match protocol rtp audio' statement ?
Also, is the 'match protocol rtp audio' statement sufficient to match all voice traffic from IP phones on the LAN ?
Regards,
Amit

Hi Amit,
Match protocol rtp video will match only video.
In regards to your second question:
Match rtp audio is good but it should be just a part of full end-to-end QoS policy and you should not only just rely on that.
While deploying QoS - there are some best practices, like marking closest to the source. Most VoIP end devices, servers will mark the traffic (audio as 46 and signalinging as 24 at either l3 or like in case of phones at l2 level)
You should configure QoS on catalyst switches. Traffic is already marked you need to enable trust on the switches and ensure traffic is priortised and markings are carried to routers. At routers you can catch this based on markings, protocol (like rtp audio), source/destination, and several other criteria. Then this is sent across WAN with appropriate markings and get preferential treatment in Service Provides network and markings are maintained through out.
So just to summarise yes it should catch audio by matching rtp audio but for QoS to work effectvely you should deploy QoS based on a wider policy that makes sure voice traffic is priortised at all possible levels.
Hope it helps.
Terry
Please rate if you find it helpful.

Cisco Prime 2.1-Traffic Classification

Hi Experts,
In cisco Prime 2.1, under Performance->service assurance, Top N Application shows 'unknown traffic' as highly utilized. How to find out what is that type of traffic..?
Thanks in advance

You can thin provision. Trying to change the overall profile though will most likely result in issues sooner or later. When you run out of disk space it will fail in ungraceful ways.

Voice Traffic over MPLS-enabled OSPF running backbone links

Hi All;
We have running frame-mode MPLS backbone and OPSF as well. Voice as real-time traffic is passing through our backbone links and marked with precedence 5 as an ordinary behaviour.
What i face is that i can not balance the voice traffic between the uplinks of the LER routers through LSR routers. Let me summarise like this.
I have a PE that has 4xE1 connection as uplinks terminated at two different LSRs. However, when i look at the voice traffic distribution from PE to Ps,the general attribute is voice traffic is choosing only one E1 and uses it. And other links are not used so much by voice traffic. And this causes poor quality of voice because, it exceeds the amount of the reserved bandtwidth that is defined via LLQ under the backbone links. I have also re-defined the priorty class bantwidth and raised it as much as it can be defined, but now, the business in contract traffic is under danger. :)
As OSPF does not support unequal load-balancing and also "load-sharing per-packet" command sucks the voice traffic, there is nothing to balance the voice traffic on the backbone links.
By the way, i have defined MPLS/TE tunnels that are PE-PE tunnels, according to my observations of voice traffic goes to where. I tried to balance the output traffic somehow but the situation is still the same. Sometimes, traffic chooses one tunnel and goes over there. In fact this problem bears with CEF itself but this is another case.
So any suggestion how i can come over this obstacle. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Baris.

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
BTW, 20 Mbps can push the practical performance capacity of a 2821.
class-map match-any LLQ
!match your VoIP bearer traffic here
policy-map Shape20M
class class-default
shape average 17000000 !we're shaping 15% slower to allow for L2 overhead
service-policy Sample
policy-map Sample
class LLQ
priority percent 30
class class-default
bandwidth remaining percent 100
fair-queue
interface tunnel #
ip tcp adjust-mss 1436
ip mtu 1476
service-policy output Shape20M
tunnel path-mtu-discovery
keepalive 1

7600 as Backbone router for MPLS core

I have 7600's and 7500's in my backbone and 7200's on the edge. My question is that when I look at the feature navigator the 7600 with Sup 720 is missing a lot of basic features required to be a core router of an MPLS Backbone. Features like Traffic engineering fast reroute, MPLS enabled Netflow are missing on this platform, is this platform not a good candidate to be a Backbone router for a service provider offering MPLS services??? 7500 on the other hand it seems 7500 seems to have support for the MPLS related features.

Not sure what version you where looking at but...
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) s72033_rp Software (s72033_rp-ADVIPSERVICESK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(18)SXF, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
Technical Support: http://www.cisco.com/techsupport
Copyright (c) 1986-2005 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Sat 10-Sep-05 01:18 by ccai
Image text-base: 0x40101040, data-base: 0x42D60000
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(17r)S2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
BOOTLDR: s72033_rp Software (s72033_rp-ADVIPSERVICESK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(18)SXF, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
CASAN_Core1 uptime is 1 week, 4 hours, 9 minutes
Time since CASAN_Core1 switched to active is 1 week, 4 hours, 8 minutes
System returned to ROM by power cycle (SP by power on)
System image file is "disk0:s72033-advipservicesk9_wan-mz.122-18.SXF.bin"
This product contains cryptographic features and is subject to United
States and local country laws governing import, export, transfer and
use. Delivery of Cisco cryptographic products does not imply
third-party authority to import, export, distribute or use encryption.
Importers, exporters, distributors and users are responsible for
compliance with U.S. and local country laws. By using this product you
agree to comply with applicable laws and regulations. If you are unable
to comply with U.S. and local laws, return this product immediately.
A summary of U.S. laws governing Cisco cryptographic products may be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/wwl/export/crypto/tool/stqrg.html
If you require further assistance please contact us by sending email to
[email protected].
cisco CISCO7609 (R7000) processor (revision 1.1) with 983008K/65536K bytes of memory.
Processor board ID FOX092307Q5
SR71000 CPU at 600Mhz, Implementation 0x504, Rev 1.2, 512KB L2 Cache
Last reset from power-on
SuperLAT software (copyright 1990 by Meridian Technology Corp).
X.25 software, Version 3.0.0.
Bridging software.
TN3270 Emulation software.
1 SIP-200 controller .
1 Virtual Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interface
74 Gigabit Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interfaces
1917K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
8192K bytes of packet buffer memory.
65536K bytes of Flash internal SIMM (Sector size 512K).
Configuration register is 0x2102
CASAN_Core1#
CASAN_Core1(config)#mpls traffic-eng ?
auto-bw auto-bw parameters
fast-reroute fast-reroute parameters
link-management Link Management configuration
logging Trap logging configuration
path-selection Path Selection Configuration
reoptimize Reoptimization parameters
signalling Traffic Engineering Signalling Parameters
topology Topology Database Configuration
tunnels Traffic Engineering tunnels

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

Ask the Expert:Concepts, Configuration and Troubleshooting Layer 2 MPLS VPN – Any Transport over MPLS (AToM)

With Vignesh R. P.
Welcome to the Cisco Support Community Ask the Expert conversation.This is an opportunity to learn and ask questions about concept, configuration and troubleshooting Layer 2 MPLS VPN - Any Transport over MPLS (AToM) with Vignesh R. P.
Cisco Any Transport over MPLS (AToM) is a solution for transporting Layer 2 packets over an MPLS backbone. It enables Service Providers to supply connectivity between customer sites with existing data link layer (Layer 2) networks via a single, integrated, packet-based network infrastructure: a Cisco MPLS network. Instead of using separate networks with network management environments, service providers can deliver Layer 2 connections over an MPLS backbone. AToM provides a common framework to encapsulate and transport supported Layer 2 traffic types over an MPLS network core.
Vignesh R. P. is a customer support engineer in the Cisco High Touch Technical Support center in Bangalore, India, supporting Cisco's major service provider customers in routing and MPLS technologies. His areas of expertise include routing, switching, and MPLS. Previously at Cisco he worked as a network consulting engineer for enterprise customers. He has been in the networking industry for 8 years and holds CCIE certification in the Routing & Switching and Service Provider tracks.
Remember to use the rating system to let Vignesh know if you have received an adequate response.
Vignesh might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Remember that you can continue the conversation on the Service Provider sub-community discussion forum shortly after the event. This event lasts through through September 21, 2012. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.

Hi Tenaro,
AToM stands for Any Transport over MPLS and it is Cisco's terminology used for Layer 2 MPLS VPN or Virtual Private Wire Service. It is basically a Layer 2 Point-to-Point Service. AToM basically supports various Layer 2 protocols like Ethernet, HDLC, PPP, ATM and Frame Relay.
The customer routers interconnect with the service provider routers at Layer 2. AToM eliminates the need for the legacy network from the service provider carrying these kinds of traffic and integrates this service into the MPLS network that already transports the MPLS VPN traffic.
AToM is an open standards-based architecture that uses the label switching architecture of MPLS and can be integrated into any network that is running MPLS. The advantage to the customer is that they do not need to change anything. Their routers that are connecting to the service provider routers can still use the same Layer 2 encapsulation type as before and do not need to run an IP routing protocol to the provider edge routers as in the MPLS VPN solution.
The service provider does not need to change anything on the provider (P) routers in the core of the MPLS network. The intelligence to support AToM sits entirely on the PE routers. The core label switching routers (LSRs) only switch labeled packets, whereas the edge LSRs impose and dispose of labels on the Layer 2 frames.
Whereas pseudowire is a connection between the PE routers and emulates a wire that is carrying Layer 2 frames. Pseudowires use tunneling. The Layer 2 frames are encapsulated into a labeled (MPLS) packet. The result is that the specific Layer 2 service—its operation and characteristics—is emulated across a Packet Switched Network.
Another technology that more or less achieves the result of AToM is L2TPV3. In the case of L2TPV3 Layer 2 frames are encapsulated into an IP packet instead of a labelled MPLS packet.
Hope the above explanation helps you. Kindly revert incase of further clarification required.
Thanks & Regards,
Vignesh R P

Traffic Classification in GSM MPLS Backbone

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for