VPLS and RPR

I am getting a lot confused on proposing VPLS or RPR for the metro solution. Can anyone guide me on the plus and minus or comparisons on VPLS and RPR technologies ????
Some links could be really usefull.
Thanks in advance

Based on my understanding, VPLS and RPR cannot be compared to each other since they are two different technologies to perform different functions although these two technologies can work hand in hand. VPLS would give you ethernet multipoint connectivity across many packet-switched technologies. RPR/ Resilient Packet Ring I believe would give you resiliency in the network with theoretical response of 50ms-200ms in fail-over as compared to ethernet technologies like RSTP, STP and Cisco's DPT.
VPLS - Virtual Private LAN Service
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk891/technologies_q_and_a_item09186a00801ed3bf.shtml
RPR - Resilient Packet Ring
http://www.networkworld.com/details/533.html?def
Cheers!

Similar Messages

  • VPLS and H-VPLS w.r.t Metro Ethernet

    Can someone please explain me VPLS and H-VPLS as to how it can be used in a Metro Ethernet Environment????Any diagramatic explanation will be highly appreciable...
    Regards,
    NISHA

    Thanks a lot for the presentations Harot...
    As I'm a bit new to MPLS technology, I have some doubts in my mind so far Layer 3 VPNs are concerned. Let's consider a typical Scenario :
    CE-->PE-->P-->P-->PE-->CE....
    Could u pls tell me where MP-BGP runs (whether in PE to P or PE to CE b'coz somewhere i read the protocol used between PE-CE is MP-BGP and that's why I'm confused) and what is it's purpose. So far I know MP-BGP is run in order to make the VPNv4 routes unique i.e IPV4+VPNv4. I would highly appreciate ur feedback if u explain the layer 3 concept entirely protocol wise...i.e IGP, MP-BGP in a MPLS domain. What I know so far is CE-PE protocol can be anything right from static to BGP. P-PE is MP-BGP.
    Kindly pl. correct me wherever I'm wrong...
    Thanks in advance...
    NISHA

  • Why VPLS and not L3 VPNs ???

    Hi all
    Please bare with me, i know a lot has been written about what VPLS is, I have read the postings, but maybe someone can in simple terms answer my qn for me;
    Why should one go for VPLS and not L3 VPNs or L3 VPNs and not VPLS, i need arguments from both the enterprise point and the ISP point
    Hope you get my Question
    Regards
    MM

    Well..
    VPLS:
    +No need to involve the ISP for routing issues
    +Support non-IP protocols - IPX, AppleTalk etc..
    -Difficult to troubleshoot
    -Possible to make a L2-loop
    -Customers could overflow mac-tables.
    L3-VPN:
    +ISP control the routing process - or the customer could control the CE-PE, and control it's own routing.
    +Loops are avoided with routing-protocols
    -Non-IP protocols have to be encapsulated to work
    Personally I liked the VPLS best before, but after choosing an ISP supporting PE-CE-protocols, not using static's and has a good support centre, I always recommend L3VPN's.
    Also within our own MPLS-network we always use L3. (with no 7600's VPLS is not supported...) EoMPLS is not used permanently used within out MPLS, but could be used for moving a customer from one datacenter to another, or other special timelimited purpose...
    L@rs

  • DPT and RPR

    Can someone explain the difference between DPT and RPR? Any help would be appreciated.

    Hi,
    RPR will be a new Layer 2 technology standard which is ring-based & similar to Sonet-ring but very far different in operation. It is packet ring technology. But as far as I know that RPR standard is not ready now.
    DTP is the ring technology which uses SRP protokol in it. It is Cisco specific protokol & tech. We can say that DTP is the RPR method which Cisco wants to push.
    Regards

  • Mpls,vpls and ES20G module for 7600

    hi all,
    do i need a ES20G module on my 7600 in order to perform VPLS,6VPE mpls and so on...
    is this module just a 'speeding' module for these fonctionnalities ?
    (it is very expensive and the license too)
    Can i implement these features without it ??
    Does someone use vpls on 7600 without that module ?
    Thanks for answer

    Yes you can run VPLS without ES-20 using any WAN OSM or SIP-600 faing the core.
    Although there would be cost difference in each module including ES-20G, but these modules have been designed with different objectives and requirements in mind. As each module provides you with either a certain media type density(ES-20G) or OSM , or the flexibility of media type usage etc (SIP-600).
    So you can weigh the pros and cons with each module including the cost marked to the budget and take a call.
    HTH-Cheers,
    Swaroop

  • VPLS and IP

    I am reading about MetroE solutions and would ask if VPLS could run over a IP backbone

    Hello,
    I almost agree with Guiseppe. I am under the impression that Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a service (as its name also states) more general than the specific technology actually used to implement it. Of course, what you can actually do in a network depends on the actual implementation.
    RFC 4762 (VPLS Using LDP Signaling) shows the topological model for VPLS: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4762#section-4
    While commenting on the cloud shown in the topology, the authors say: "We note here again that while this document shows specific examples using MPLS transport tunnels, other tunnels that can be used by PWs (as mentioned in [RFC4447]) -- e.g., GRE, L2TP, IPsec -- can also be used, as long as the originating PE can be identified, since this is used in the MAC learning process."
    Another service popping up is IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS), described in a draft (short description of IPLS is found in the introductory Abstract section). IPLS topology diagram can be seen at:
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-08#section-3.0
    The comment of the authors in this case is: "PE1, PE2 and PE3 are shown as connected via an MPLS network; however, other tunneling technologies, such as GRE, L2TPv3, etc., could also be used to carry the pseudowires."
    As for the point-to-point versus point-to-multipoint comparison, I am not so sure. I mean, the VPLS configuration that I am aware of seems to me very similar to a full-mesh of point-to-point AToM VCs (you say "neighbor" instead of "xconnect" to LDP peer). It could easily be that the MPLS logic underneath builds the related LSPs in a point-to-point fashion. I think those are all emulations and as such their purpose is to give us an illusion (which can easily turn out to be not a very good one). People keep trying to emulate Ethernet LAN behavior over other types of media (has been tried in ATM too). They are destined to replicate broadcast and multicast packets across VCs or pseudowires or anything.
    It seems to me that there is a tendency towards pure IP networks. I've been reading that MPLS can be used as a migration path into next-generation metro provider services (IP/VPNs). And I suspect they are going to tell us at some point that MPLS is a "legacy" technology!
    Kind Regards,
    M.

  • How to run a Robotic Studio DSS service and VPL on a cloud link

    Hi
      I need a few DSS services to run in a number of cloud links. VPL and other DSS nodes need to run on a different link. How to configure supported robotics platforms to communicate the MRDS please? please advise on the MRDS configurations as well.
    Thank you

    Hello,
    I'd ask in the
    Microsoft Robotics - Community forum.
    Karl
    When you see answers and helpful posts, please click Vote As Helpful, Propose As Answer, and/or Mark As Answer.
    My Blog: Unlock PowerShell
    My Book: Windows PowerShell 2.0 Bible
    My E-mail: -join ('6F6C646B61726C40686F746D61696C2E636F6D'-split'(?<=\G.{2})'|%{if($_){[char][int]"0x$_"}})

  • VPLS support for SIP-600 and 10GE-SPA

    Hello all,
    is SIP-600 (7600-SIP-600) with Cisco 1-port 10GE SPA V2 (SPA-1X10GE-L-V2) support VPLS ?
    i see in datasheet SIP-600 support for VPLS but in 10GESPA datasheet there is no VPLS features support
    Thanks
    Regards,

    Hello,
    Yes, it should.
    You could check Table 4-9 VPLS Feature Compatibility by SIP and SPA Combination:
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/shared_port_adapters/configuration/7600series/76cfgsip.html#wp1270728
    There are some restricition about H-VPLS on c7600/SIP, like it could be seen at the "VPLS Configuration Guidelines"
    section of above link. But they are generic for SIP-600 itself:
    – H-VPLS with Q-in-Q edge—Requires a Cisco 7600 SIP-600 in the uplink, and any LAN port or Cisco 7600 SIP-600 on the downlink.
    - H-VPLS with MPLS edge requires either an OSM module, Cisco 7600 SIP-600, or Cisco 7600 SIP-400 in both the downlink (facing UPE) and uplink (MPLS core).
    As for SPAs - restriction is about H-VPLS and FastEthernet one:
    "Note: H-VPLS is not available on Fast Ethernet SPAs"
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/shared_port_adapters/configuration/7600series/76cfgeth.html#wp1196808
    Thanks,
    Sergey

  • Min and NVL with subquery

    Hello,
    Below is my query
                     select  nvl( min(csp.coeficient_value),  (select csp1.coeficient_value
                                                                 from csp csp1
                                                                where csp1.rule_code = 'A55' )) coeffient_value
                       from adr,
                            sec,
                            rpr,
                            csp
                      where adr.adr_id = sec.adr_id
                        and sec.account_id = 663799
                        and adr.pcode between rpr.start_pcode and rpr.end_pcode
                        and rpr.rule_code = csp.rule_code
                        and sysdate between csp.start_date and csp.end_date when i run this query it is giving me an error "ORA-00933: SQL command not properly ended"
    Can anyone help me with this?
    As i don't want to hardcode the value of rule 'A55' and want to retrieve from database.
    Thanks for your help.
    Message was edited by:
    AB

    By using below query my problem is resolved.
    select nvl(coeffient_value, (select csp1.coeficient_value
                                                                 from csp csp1
                                                                where csp1.rule_code = 'A55' ))
    from (
    select  min(csp.coeficient_value)  coeffient_value
                       from adr,
                            sec,
                            rpr,
                            csp
                      where adr.adr_id = sec.adr_id
                        and sec.account_id = 663799
                        and adr.pcode between rpr.start_pcode and rpr.end_pcode
                        and rpr.rule_code = csp.rule_code
                        and sysdate between csp.start_date and csp.end_date )Thanks to all for helping me.

  • VPLS PE to CPE hand-off restrictions...

    Hello,
    I am investigating the implementation of a VPLS roll out over an existing MPLS network.  The current PE devices are running MPLS and M-BGP with no issues and layer-3 services are running for our customers.  Recently we have began to have requests for layer-2 services and we have used the occassional xconnect without issues to achieve this, however we are looking to provide more advanced any-any connectivity for one of the customers which is making VPLS look like a good option for us.  When we were using a layer-2 xconnect we would simply present the layer-2 connection on a sub-interface on the PE device and bridge it through the CPE router using bridge-groups - which is not very elegant but it does work. Sometime the downstream CPE device is actually a switch using SVI's and in this instance we can simply switch the connection straight though at layer-2.
    My issue is that the CPE's in use are primarily routers (and not switches that can implement SVI's) so the connection configuration from the PE to the CPE is configured using sub-interfaces on routed ports rather than trunks and VLAN interfaces.  I can amend this easily enough on the PE devices (6509 and 760x) however C290x, C1812 and C2811 devices only work using sub-interfaces so you cannot use SVIs - please correct me if this is wrong...
    The configuration examples I have seen for VPLS implies its the whole interface that is configured on the PE device using "switchport mode dot1q-tunnel" or similar.
    Existing - MPLS PE --> Trunk containing sub-interfaces with L3 P-2-P connections and L2 xconnect --> CPE router
    Required - MPLS PE --> Trunk containing sub-interfaces with  L3 P-2-P connections, VPLS and L2 xconnect --> CPE router
    Is there any sneaky way to index sub-interfaces into VPLS or does it have to be the whole port? Q-in-Q for example appears to be a switch function and not router option as it requires switchport commands which are not available on a router CPE such as the C1812, C290x and C28xx.
    If need be then I will recommend that the CPE devices need to be swapped out for a L3 switch, however this would add greatly to any design implementation costs and I would like to retain the existing CPE routers if possible.
    In a nutshell here we have a remote CPE connected over a WAN link of some sort and I want to be able to offer existing Layer-3 services, EoMPLS xconnect services and VPLS all over the same WAN bearer where the CPE is a router and not a switch.
    Thanks for any guidance.
    Keith

    Hello Keith
    There is an option on 2900, 1800, 2800 series router to add switching modules and this will help add the switching funtionality and the CLI's related to it. It shall solve your purpose. Please refer to the below mentioned white paper:
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5853/prod_white_paper0900aecd8064c9f4.html
    Please let me know if you have any questions.
    Regards
    Vinit

  • 7600 platform for MPLS based L2 and L3 services

    Hi,
    We are planning to deploy 7600s (testing to be done) for L2 and L3 services. Has anyone out there found some issues with both the layers functioning in unison on the same.
    Thanks
    Cheers,
    ~sultan

    Hello Charles,
    Thanks for you reply, actually I wanted to know more specific details, like IOS and modules being used by others, which you have stated.
    I am planning to go for SIP-200 and SIP-400 with STM-1 POS, 2xGIG and FE8 modules.
    Services would be EoMPLS, including VPLS and MPLS/BGP IP VPNs.
    Thanks
    Cheers
    ~sultan

  • Ethernet over MPLS/VPLS

    Hi,
    I would appreciate if you answer my following questions :
    - As you know EoMPLS is based on physical port, but how about VPLS?
    - Could you tell me minimum router which supports VPLS?
    - Any other solutions for transfer ethernet frames over MPLS except VPLS and EoMPLS?
    - I think VPLS is better EoMPLS because it supports multipoint to multipoint ,is it true? could you please tell me VPLS advantage and disadvatage?
    Regards,
    M.Arshad rad

    Ehlo ,
    1)EoMPLS is available in port and vlan mode.Since VPLS
    is actually using martini encapsulations ( both lasserre and kompella ) it is possible to use raw and tagged modes.
    2)IMHO only Cisco router that supports VPLS now is 7600.Additionaly VFI can be only assigned to SVI.
    3)Juniper CCC ( RSVP based ) - but obviously you won't use it since it's proprietary ( nevertherless it has nice feature like lsp-stiching ) and IOS couldn't signall it .
    4) VPLS is designed to support p-to-mp and therefore
    it's more complex.IF you don't need its features you can stick with raw p2p martini , which is relatively simple and widely implemented ( no problem for example to configure it between ios and junos boxes ).
    pm

  • Cisco Router for VPLS

    Which is the lowest series router i need to test VPLS or Pseudowire in LAB?
    Will 26XX or 37XX will support the VPLS and Pseudowire testing?

    For VPLS in terms of series the smallest is 76xx.
    Pseudowire, you can test starting with 72xx.
    HTH-Cheers,
    Swaroop

  • Branch VPLS questions

    Hi All,
    Our company uses VPLS and on one of the branch sites we have the following connections
    VPLS ----PE ----NTU --- ASR 1002 Router ---Switch
    I am bit confused about this config. Can some one help me what these configurations ? and is it correct way of doing for VPLS ?
    On the ASR 1002 router I have the following config
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0/1
     description  VPLS Connection
     bandwidth 200000
     ip address x.x.x.x
     no ip redirects
     no ip proxy-arp
     ip flow ingress
     load-interval 30
     speed 1000
     no negotiation auto
     cdp enable
     service-policy output qos-policy
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0/2
     description switch port
     ip address x.x.x.x
     ip nbar protocol-discovery
     ip flow ingress
     ip pim sparse-dense-mode
     ip ospf authentication-key 7 xxxx
     negotiation auto
     cdp enable
     service-policy input class-mark
    router eigrp 1
     network x.x.0.0
    On the switch we have
    interface GigabitEthernetx/y
     description ASr router
     ip address X.x.x.x
     ip pim sparse-dense-mode
     ip ospf authentication-key xxx
     mls qos trust dscp

    Hello.
    As I understood you a customer 9not a provider), so you do not configure VPLS. If so, there is not reason to think of "VPLS configuration".

  • Can Cisco 7200VXR support for VPLS?

    Hi all,
    I check Cisco Nagivator Feature to find which IOS support for VPLS on Cisco Router 7200VXR and found that IOS image "c7200-spservicesk9-mz.122-33.SRD.bin" can do it as below;
    - VPLS Autodiscovery, BGP-based
    - VPLS Multiple VCs per Spoke
    When I try to configure Virtual Forwarding Instance, it's not allow me to configure the above features (VPLS Autodiscovery: BGP Based, Manual Configuration of VPLS) and only support point-to-point configuration mode you can see it as below
    R1#show version
    Cisco IOS Software, 7200 Software (C7200-SPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.2(33)SRD, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)
    Technical Support: http://www.cisco.com/techsupport
    Copyright (c) 1986-2008 by Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Compiled Thu 23-Oct-08 12:58 by prod_rel_team
    R1(config)#l2 vfi ?
    WORD VFI name
    R1(config)#l2 vfi VPLS_A ?
    point-to-point Point-to-point configuration mode
    R1(config)#l2 vfi VPLS_A point-to-point ?
    <cr>
    R1(config)#router bgp 100
    R1(config-router)#bgp router-id 150.1.1.1
    R1(config-router)#neighbor 150.1.12.2 remote-as 100
    R1(config-router)#neighbor 150.1.12.2 update-source lo0
    R1(config-router)#address-family ?
    ipv4 Address family
    ipv6 Address family
    l2vpn Address family
    nsap Address family
    vpnv4 Address family
    vpnv6 Address family
    R1(config-router)#address-family l2vpn ?
    vpls Address Family modifier
    <cr>
    R1(config-router)#address-family l2vpn vpls ?
    <cr>
    R1(config-router)#address-family l2vpn vpls
    % BGP: Error initializing topology
    R1(config-router)#
    I can use "l2 vfi VPLS_A point-to-point" for Layer 2 VPN Pseudo-Wire Switching but not for VPLS multipoint configuration mode. Can Cisco 7200VXR support VPLS on this IOS image? If it can't, which IOS image can do it on this platform.

    VPLS is not supported on 7200, you can configure point to point here but not point to multipoint, you will have to move to 7600 for that.

Maybe you are looking for