WCCP-2 and MPLS

Hi
This is a question regarding WCCP-2 and MPLS as well.
I have a customer who has Cisco Catalyst 6500 switches and would also like to run MPLS on the Network. MPLS as such is supported only on the Layer-3 modules. The customer has the GIG OSM modules and ATM modules in the switch. The GIG Modules connect to the Internet and the ATM modules connect to various of the branches. The Content Engines are connected to FastEthernet modules on the 6500 which do not support MPLS.
Now to run WCCP-2 redirection, this would be done on the GIG interfaces with the "ip wccp redirect out" command on that interface in addition to the usual commands for WCCP-2. Now what happens is that the input packets received via the branches are all going to be MPLS tagged. Will these packets be redirected to the CE before they are sent off the output GIG interfaces.
Also the customer require to run IP spoofing with WCCP-2. Will the same thing happen in the opposite direction.
Will this work at all.
Thanks

You described the physical connection, but not logical structure.
1. You did not mentioned does the customer have Layer 3 module installed in Catalyst 6500? Catalyst 6500 without RSM (route switch module) can not make desition on the 3d layer.
All modules that you mentioned are 2d layer modules. Usually, when you have RSM, you create virtual interfaces, where you configure the routing or 3d layer information. Of course, you can configure it directly in the physical interface (you need to allow this fuction, by default, physical interfaces are switched ones).
2. Catalyst 6500 - what role it has in MPLS network (CE, PE, something else)?
3. What you mean under "sent to Internet"? Usually the packets to Internet are sent without MPLS tags. MPLS tags are used inside of MPLS backbone. The customer also receie pure IP-packet without any addtional tags.

Similar Messages

  • MP-BGP and MPLS

    Hello all,
    I've been experimenting recently with MP-BGP and MPLS. I have no issues with how it works and how to implement and have a fully working lab however I am wondering whether there is a solution that exists in order to create a full mesh without on every PE router having to specify the IP address of every other PE router in the VPNv4 configuration. So the ideal scenario would be that i could add another site to my MPLS which will receive all routes from every other site without updating any configuration at any other site.
    Thanks

    Hi Mathew,
    You can choose P1 or P2 as RR and configure a single MP-BGP session from PE devices to RR. Any new PE that you want to include will need configuraion changes on RR and the new PE alone. You dont need to add configuration on other exisitng PEs.
    You can also play around with bgp dynamic neighbor to further reduce the configuration. But I ahvent used it myself and not sure if VPNv4 is supported.
    -Nagendra

  • Frame Relay and MPLS

    Hi,
    I want to ask about the frame relay and MPLS.
    Frame Relay Scenerio
    The frames reached at the frame relay network and forwarded on the basis of DLCI. All the VCs are defined prior to the traffic on the network on the basis of DLCI (This is just like the MPLS network as packets are forwarded on the basis of Labels).
    Now my Question is How can MPLS is used in frame relay network or what are its affects in the presence of DLCI (As DLCIs are also performing the same task and also works on layer 2) or these two are different equivalent technologies ?

    Hi Muhammad,
    The answer is : MPLS is working on FR like it's working on ethernet. Because the FR and Ethernet are running on Layer2. It's told that MPLS is working at layer 2.5 , meaning that is between Layer 3 , and Layer 2. So in order to work it needs a layer2 forwarding in your case FR's DLCI. On top of the Layer 2 it is the MPLS header.
    Dan

  • MTU over DMVPN and MPLS

    Hello All,
    I have a query regarding MTU over both DMVPN and MPLS.
    I have been running the following command from a windows box
    ping x.x.x.x -f -l yyy     (yyyy being the buffer size) and x.x.x.x being my remote hosts
    I am using the same destination host and have two different paths to it. One over MPLS and one over a DMVPN.
    I would have expected to be able to send packets with a higher MTU over the MPLS but for both MPLS and DMVPN the maximum packet size I can send with the DF bit set is the same  (1372).
    Is this normal behaviour? I though MPLS would have less overhead, so my maximum packet size would be higher in my tests

    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
    Generally, MPLS supports an increased MTU, when adding MPLS labels, while VPN tunnels, like DMVPN, don't exceed original MTU, and so, it reduces payload space.  So, normally, you should see larger ping buffer DF support across MPLS than DMVPN.  However, "normal" can be very much impacted by actual device configurations, including making MTU for DF packets the same for either MPLS or DMVPN.  (For example, you might want to make the two paths alike so flows that for any reason need to be redirect from one media path to the other see a consistent MTU.)

  • VRF lite and MPLS VRFs

    We have a CE router connected to PE router. The CE router is connected via 2 links to the PE router, because we need to create two VRFs on the PE for the traffic coming from the CE to separate the traffic, so we have one vrf per link. We are running OSPF between CE and PE.. Now we need to further separate the traffic up to the CE, so I’m thinking of using the VRF lite on the CE.. Can MPLS work with the VRF lite, and how to map the VRF lite VRFs on the CE to the MPLS VPN on the PE?
    Is there any config examples?
    Thanks in advance

    VRF Lite and MPLS-VPN act independently so they can work independently. And there is no specific need for mapping. If link is for VRF A on PE so you can make it part of vrf A in CE as well. Both VRFs are independent of each other.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps4324/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00801cddd9.html#1045190
    THis document is for 4500 but logic holds the same.

  • Layer 3 to the Access Layer and MPLS Design Considerations

    Hi,
    We are about to install a new network consisting of Cat 4500s with Sup7E at the Access Layer, with Nexus 7000 at the Distribution and Core layers.
    We have 14 floors with at least three 4500s on each floor. Within the office block where the Access Layer and Distribution Layer reside we need to support secure borderless networking using 802.1x to place users from different parts of the business into segregated networks at layer 3.
    All switches will have the feature sets to support MPLS/ VRF / OSPF / EIGRP / BGP etc.
    We quickly dismissed the idea of using VRF-Lite due to the sheer number of Vlans we would need to managage and maintain,  the point to point links alone just to get one additional VRF on each floor required far too many Vlans.
    As a result we are now considering deploying MPLS. The obvious benefits include scalability and manageability, the fact that all switch to switch links can now be routed, instead of having to using SVIs.
    My query is one of design surrounding MPLS and how this maps to an enterprise network with a routed access layer. Do Cat 4500s become the CEs and take part in MPLS / BGP and Label Distribution, or does the BGP peering and Label Distribution only occur between the Distrubtion - Core - Distrubtion layers, mapping to the PE - P - PE topology in an ISP environment, the access layer simply uses the IGP (OSPF in this case) to learn routes ?
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Chris.

    Hi Andy,
    Thanks for your response.
    I have been doing a little bit more research it seems the Cat 4500s do not support MPLS!! Nor do Cisco have any plans to support it on this platform. I find this a little rediculous considering the level that Cisco are pitching this platform. With the Sup 7E only VRF Lite is supported, with plans to support EVN (which still uses trunk links for logical separation).
    So it looks like we are going to have to go back to the drawing board.
    (perhaps we should have gone HP or Juniper!)
    Chris.

  • WCCP mask and weight?

    Hello
    We're setting up an scenario with datacenter with three WAEs using WCCP to distribute the load.
    The core switches are catalyst 6500 so we're using redirect in. L2 redirection and mask to optimize forwarding of redirected packet.
    the problem is that the three WAEs are not equal. Two are 612-2GB and the other is a 7341, so we want to use the weight parameter of the wccp tcp-promiscuous command, but I'm not sure if this parameter works also with the mask mode or only with hash mode. And couldn' t find a definitive answer in the documentation.
    It's possible?
    Regards, Fernando

    Fernando,
    Typically we don't see/ nor recommend using such different devices, especially in the data center.  The 7341 can handle up to 12000 concurrent optimized connections, and the 612-2GB can only handle up 4800 concurrent optimized connections.   So, in the event of a 7341 failure you will lose more than half of the connection capacity you data center can handle.
    However, you can use the weight keyword with mask assignment.  I just confirmed in my lab two WAEs connected to a 6500 with the following config:
    WAE 14.110.3.19
    wccp router-list 1 14.110.3.17
    wccp tcp-promiscuous mask src-ip-mask 0xf dst-ip-mask 0x0
    wccp tcp-promiscuous router-list-num 1 weight 90 l2-redirect mask-assign
    wccp version 2
    WAE 14.110.3.20
    wccp router-list 1 14.110.3.17
    wccp tcp-promiscuous mask src-ip-mask 0xf dst-ip-mask 0x0
    wccp tcp-promiscuous router-list-num 1 weight 10 l2-redirect mask-assign
    wccp version 2
    6500 output:
    pdi-6500#sh ip wccp 61 det
    WCCP Cache-Engine information:
    Web Cache ID:          14.110.3.20
    Protocol Version:      2.0
    State:                 Usable
    Redirection:           L2
    Packet Return:         GRE
    Packets Redirected:    0
    Connect Time:          00:00:45
    Assignment:            MASK
    Mask  SrcAddr    DstAddr    SrcPort DstPort
    0000: 0x0000000F 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000
    Value SrcAddr    DstAddr    SrcPort DstPort CE-IP
    0014: 0x0000000E 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0314 (14.110.3.20)
    0015: 0x0000000F 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0314 (14.110.3.20)
    Web Cache ID:          14.110.3.19
    Protocol Version:      2.0
    State:                 Usable
    Redirection:           L2
    Packet Return:         GRE
    Packets Redirected:    68
    Connect Time:          00:00:39
    Assignment:            MASK
    Mask  SrcAddr    DstAddr    SrcPort DstPort
    0000: 0x0000000F 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000
    Value SrcAddr    DstAddr    SrcPort DstPort CE-IP
    0000: 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0001: 0x00000001 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0002: 0x00000002 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0003: 0x00000003 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0004: 0x00000004 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0005: 0x00000005 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0006: 0x00000006 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0007: 0x00000007 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0008: 0x00000008 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0009: 0x00000009 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0010: 0x0000000A 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0011: 0x0000000B 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0012: 0x0000000C 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    0013: 0x0000000D 0x00000000 0x0000  0x0000  0x0E6E0313 (14.110.3.19)
    So you will see the WAE with weight of 90 took 14 of the 16 available buckets.
    Sorry for the confusion on the original update.
    Regards,
    Mike Korenbaum
    Cisco WAAS PDI Help Desk
    http://www.cisco.com/go/pdihelpdesk

  • Layer 3 Etherchannel and MPLS MTU

    Greetings,
    If two 7609 are connected through layer 3 giga etherchannel and 7609-1 sends a frame with 1514 bytes plus two MPLS header to 7609-2, does the command “mpls mtu 1522” under the giga etherchannel interface on both routers is enough?
    Or it is necessary to add the global command “system jumbomtu 1522” and the interface command “mtu 1522” under physical gigainterfaces participating on the channel?
    Cisco docs say many platforms will accept frames higher than 1500 bytes (up to 24 bytes) to accommodate control flags; that is why I am considering just “mpls mtu xxx” is enough.
    Also, reading Cisco doc I understood that “system jumbomtu xxxx” and “mtu xxxx” should be used together. I tested sending frames higher than 1514 bytes (without MPLS tags) and “system jumbomtu xxxx” alone was not enough, ping failed; it was necessary to add “mtu xxxx” under the interface. Do you have a different experience?
    Thanks,
    Alaerte Gladston Vidali
    IBM Global Services - SO
    Tel.55+11+2121-2879 Fax:55+11+2121-2449

    Hi
    We had some peculiar exp with 7600 (7609/7606) boxes in which we did change the physical mtu of the interface instead of mpls mtu.
    Again that did the trick for us even in 7200 where we monitored the same kinda behaviour..
    regds

  • MP-BGP and MPLS multipath load sharing

    Hi,
    I am trying to PoC MPLS multi path load sharing by using per-PE-per-VRF RDs in the network.
    I have a simple lab setup with AS65000 which consists of SITE1 PE1&PE2 routers (10.250.0.101 and 10.250.0.102), route reflector RR in the middle (10.250.0.55) and SITE2 PE1&PE2 routers (10.250.0.201 and 10.250.0.202). PE routers only do iBGP peering with centralized route reflector and passing route to 10.1.1.0/24 prefix (learned from single CE router) with 100:1 and 100:2 RDs for specific VRF.
    Route reflector gets routes with multiple RDs, makes copies of these routes in order to make local comparison to RD 55:55 configured, uses these routes and install multiple paths into its routing table (all PE routers and RR have "maximum-paths eibgp 4" configured):
    RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
    BGP table version is 7, local router ID is 10.250.0.55
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
                  r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
       Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 55:55 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.55
    * i10.1.1.0/24      10.250.0.102             0    100      0 65001 i
    *>i                 10.250.0.101             0    100      0 65001 i
    Route Distinguisher: 100:1
    *>i10.1.1.0/24      10.250.0.101             0    100      0 65001 i
    Route Distinguisher: 100:2
    *>i10.1.1.0/24      10.250.0.102             0    100      0 65001 i
    RR#sh ip route vrf VRF-A
    <output omitted>
         10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
    B       10.1.1.0/24 [200/0] via 10.250.0.102, 00:45:52
                              [200/0] via 10.250.0.101, 00:46:22
    BUT, for some reason RR doest reflects routes with multiple RDs down to SITE2 PE1&PE2 - its own clients:
    RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.201 advertised-routes
    Total number of prefixes 0
    RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.202 advertised-routes
    Total number of prefixes 0
    Here comes RR BGP configuration:
    router bgp 65000
    no synchronization
    bgp router-id 10.250.0.55
    bgp cluster-id 1.1.1.1
    bgp log-neighbor-changes
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    no auto-summary
    address-family vpnv4
      neighbor 10.250.0.101 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.101 send-community both
      neighbor 10.250.0.102 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.102 send-community both
      neighbor 10.250.0.201 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.201 send-community both
      neighbor 10.250.0.202 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.202 send-community both
    exit-address-family
    address-family ipv4 vrf VRF-A
      maximum-paths eibgp 4
      no synchronization
      bgp router-id 10.250.0.55
      network 10.255.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255
    exit-address-family
    SITE1 PE1 configuration:
    router bgp 65000
    no synchronization
    bgp router-id 10.250.0.101
    bgp log-neighbor-changes
    neighbor 10.250.0.55 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.55 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.55 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    no auto-summary
    address-family vpnv4
      neighbor 10.250.0.55 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.55 send-community both
    exit-address-family
    address-family ipv4 vrf VRF-A
      neighbor 10.1.101.2 remote-as 65001
      neighbor 10.1.101.2 activate
      neighbor 10.1.101.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound
      maximum-paths eibgp 4
      no synchronization
      bgp router-id 10.250.0.101
    exit-address-family
    SITE1 PE2 configuration is similar to SITE1 PE1. They both do eBGP peering with dualhomed CE router in AS65001 which announces 10.1.1.0/24 prefix into VRF-A table.
    My question is: clearly, the issue is that RR doesn't reflect any routes to its clients (SITE2 PE1&PE2) for 10.1.1.0/24 prefix with 100:1 and 100:2 RDs that dont match it's locally configured RD 55:55 for VRF-A, although they are present in its BGP/RIB tables and used for multipathing. Is this an expected behavior or some feature limitation for specific platform or IOS version? Currently, in this test lab setup I run IOS 12.4(24)T8 on all the devices.
    Please, let me know if any further details are needed to get an idea of why this well known and widely used feature is not working correctly in my case. Thanks a lot!
    Regards,
    Sergey

    Hi Ashish,
    I tried to remove VRF and address family configurations completely from RR.
    router bgp 65000
    no synchronization
    bgp router-id 10.250.0.55
    bgp cluster-id 1.1.1.1
    bgp log-neighbor-changes
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.101 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.102 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.201 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 update-source Loopback0
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 route-reflector-client
    neighbor 10.250.0.202 soft-reconfiguration inbound
    no auto-summary
    address-family vpnv4
      neighbor 10.250.0.101 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.101 send-community both
      neighbor 10.250.0.102 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.102 send-community both
      neighbor 10.250.0.201 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.201 send-community both
      neighbor 10.250.0.202 activate
      neighbor 10.250.0.202 send-community both
    exit-address-family
    After this, RR doesn't accept any routes at all from S1PE1&S1PE2 routers, thus not reflecting any routes down to its clients S2PE1&S2PE2 as well:
    S1PE1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
    BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.101
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
                  r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
       Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 100:1 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.101
    *> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.101.2               0             0 65001 i
    S1PE1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.55 advertised-routes
    BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.101
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
                  r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
       Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 100:1 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.101
    *> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.101.2               0             0 65001 i
    Total number of prefixes 1
    S1PE2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
    BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.102
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
                  r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
       Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 100:2 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.102
    *> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.201.2               0             0 65001 i
    S1PE2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.55 advertised-routes
    BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.102
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
                  r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
       Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 100:2 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.102
    *> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.201.2               0             0 65001 i
    Total number of prefixes 1
    RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
    RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.101 routes
    Total number of prefixes 0
    RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.102 routes
    Total number of prefixes 0
    Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.
    Regards,
    Sergey

  • BGP Redistribute-internal and MPLS

    Hi, usually when redistributing from BGP into IGP only EBGP routes are redistributed unless the bgp redistribute-internal command is configured which allows the redistribution of IBGP routes. However when doing the same redistribution on a PE router for a IGP running with the CE it seems that this command is not needed and IBGP routes still get redistributed into the IGP. It works without this command. Does anyone know why this is the case?
    I have been trying to understand this for some time now and it seems very trivial however its been bugging me and was hoping someone could clarify. Thx

    Hi Vikram,
    Well, look at it this way, in the case of MPLS VPN, BGP between the PEs (address-family ipv4 vrf x) is used to transport the customer routes between CEs, and thus it is very logical that it should redistribute all kind of routes (in the case of MPLS VPN the customer routes are always going to be iBGP anyway since they are redistributed from IGP (PE-CE) on another PE - except on the local router when the customer is using BGP as the PE-CE routing protocol) - using another prospective, redistributing iBGP routes into IGPs may cause routing loops to form within an autonomous system, but in the case of PE-CE the redistribution is done into a routing protocol outside the BGP domain (customer side).
    I hope that i've been informative.
    BR,
    Mohammed Mahmoud.

  • MARS and MPLS networks

    Hi folks,
    I have an 80+ node network connected via a service provider managed MPLS VPN cloud. Each one of my 'spokes' connects to the provider edge (PE) router via a /30 subnet. All of my customer edge (CE) routers are in MARS, but of course the PE routers are not. When MARS graphs my network it shows 80 'stub' networks with no connectivity between them.
    I've spoken with the TME and I think the feature is planned for a future release, but I had a idea I wanted to bounce off of the folks here:
    What if I created a virtual generic router in MARS, and populated it with 80 interfaces. Each interface would have the corresponding PE router's /30 IP address. I think this would let MARS tie all of the stub networks together.
    Has anyone tried this? Will it only fix the graphing problem, or is there added benefit for MARS when everything is tied together as a cohesive network.
    Any input would be greatly appreciated.

    I think the idea of creating a virtual router and then assigning its interfaces with corresponding IP addresses will work for MARS to tie the networks. It could fix the graphing problem but I dont think anything more it will deliver.

  • Sup32 and mpls over gre

    does sup32 on 7600 router support mpls over gre, my uplinks
    to the core are connected via sup32?

    Hello Atif,
    in the following link the datasheet of sup32
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps2797/ps5972/product_data_sheet0900aecd801c5cab_ps368_Products_Data_Sheet.html
    table1 contains the following:
    Hardware-enabled MPLS-Enables use of VPNs and Layer 2 tunneling while improving traffic engineering for QoS and adding multiprotocol support
    • Hardware-enabled IPv6-Expands available IP addresses, enabling better address allocation and address aggregation and supporting greater end-to-end connectivity and services
    • Hardware-enabled GRE tunnels for IP traffic
    be aware that performances are limited in comparison to sup720 as it is shown in table2.
    Hope to help
    Giuseppe

  • IPX and MPLS

    I am begining to implement an MPLS network. I have several sites that are using Novell 4.1 servers that are using IPX. At present I am using EIGRP and Frame Relay with some Point to Point connections. When I move all of these sites over to the MPLS network, what am I going to have to do to keep the IPX working between these servers.
    Will IPX run on MPLS? Or will MPLS encapsulate the IPX Packet in IP?
    Some of these servers cannot be upgraded to the Novell 5.0 or 5.1 using IP.

    It's kind of funny the "MP" in MPLS still needs some time. I doubt we will see anything for carrying IPX natively inside MPLS, mainly because the demand isn't there in the service provider space.
    There are emerging standards for bridging layer 2 inside MPLS - particularly VPLS. That may be an option, but it's not clear what platforms are supporting it right now as the standard is still in draft.
    For the short-term, certainly upgrading to nate IP is most desirable. If that's not feasable, then GRE tunnels will work well with a small number of servers.
    (Tunnels are point-to-point = n-squared)

  • L3 VPN and MPLS core

    Hi all,
    1) I am new to MPLS and trying to configure a scenario in a non production environment. Is it possible to have L3 VPN's without using BGP in MPLS core network? For some reason I am more inclined to use RIPv2, EIGRP or OSPF in the core.
    2) Is it possible to use 2600 series router as PE?
    Thanks in advance.

    hi SHAH
    to add to the nice cooments in the discussion
    the BGP used with mpls and L3 VPN called MP-BGP
    the VPN in with VRFs, RD and RT each one add to the ip packet an identifier to distingush the packet with the provider network from other packet and make it uniqe to pass these identifiers from router to router especiallt from PE router to PE router u need the BGP (MP-BGP)
    hope this helpful

  • VRF and MPLS

    Is it possible to connect a CE via vrf to a PE (ISP) running full MPLS?

    I believe the support for MPLS is there for 3750-Metro range. If you have a Cat 3750 then MPLS is not supported.
    But you can although configure MultiVRF CE as described in an earlier post in this thread.
    You can run a layer 2 trunk to your next-hop Full MPLS PE and, create dot1q subinterfaces on both sides for the required number of VRF's. There shouldnt be any performance issues as far as i know with this setup.
    In fact not carrying your IBGP to your aggregation edges (CE's) you have a leaner network, which is the way to go for enterprises trying to virtualize their network.
    Here is a reference link for configuration sample.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk828/technologies_white_paper0900aecd8012033f.shtml
    HTH-Cheers,
    Swaroop

Maybe you are looking for