[88876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MLPPP over MPLS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hyunseog Ryu)
Tue Feb 21 15:00:48 2006
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:00:01 -0600
From: Hyunseog Ryu <r.hyunseog@ieee.org>
To: Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.net
In-Reply-To: <18a5e7cb0602211101j56d4f52eme1b8e732ac3cbdc4@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Overall, MLPPP may work fine with MPLS as long as you have single
virtual circuit from each physical circuit.
Such as T1 channel from Channelized DS3...
But you have to use sub-interface (logical interface) other than
sub-channel from channeliezed circuit,
you may have some problem.
If you want to use QoS with MLPPP, some cases you may have to disable
CEF because of side effects.
Overall, what I was recommended by Cisco source, is, if possible, to use
MLFR instead of MLPPP for MPLS integration.
If you need more information, you can contact your local Cisco System
Engineer, and he/she will give more information to you.
Hyun
Bill Stewart wrote:
> I've also heard a variety of comments about difficulties in getting
> Cisco MLPPP working in MPLS environments, mostly in the past year when
> our product development people weren't buried in more serious problems
> (:--) I've got the vague impression that it was more buggy for N>2
> than N=2. There are a number of ways to bond NxT1 together, including
> MLFR and IMA, and we've generally used IMA for ATM and MPLS services
> and CEF for Internet. IMA has the annoyance of extra ATM overhead,
> but doesn't have problems with load-balancing or out-of-order
> delivery, and we've used it long enough to be good at dealing with its
> other problems.
>
>
>
>
>
