Networking

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • MPLS InterAS Drafts/RFC

    5 answers - 496 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    Hello Folks,
    Is there an Internet draft or RFC for MPLS Inter-AS VPNs. I know there 3-4 options with Cisco to configure but could not find any draft or RFC pertaining to this on Web.
    Could someone point me to these ? Are these Cisco proprietary solutions ?
    Thanks for your help.
    Annu.
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
    cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
    archive at
  • No.1 | | 740 bytes | |

    PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
    Hash: SHA1

    Annu Roopa wrote:
    Hello Folks,

    Is there an Internet draft or RFC for MPLS Inter-AS VPNs. I know there 3-4 options with Cisco to configure but could not find any draft or RFC pertaining to this on Web.

    Could someone point me to these ? Are these Cisco proprietary solutions ?

    Thanks for your help.

    RFC 4363 Sec 10 (commonly referred to as A, B, and C).

    Also draft:

    - --
    bep

    PGP SIGNATURE
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    PpBBURcWhE++cpzDD6cT7GA=
    =BjX6
    PGP SIGNATURE

    cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net

    archive at
  • No.2 | | 451 bytes | |

    24/08/2006, at 3:43 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:

    RFC 4363 Sec 10 (commonly referred to as A, B, and C).

    From operational experience, what are peoples thoughts on B
    vs C? I can image that multi-hopping the C solution
    could get ugly unless you have tight geographical / topological
    grouping of VPN endpoints in the peer AS.

    David

    cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net

    archive at
  • No.3 | | 1043 bytes | |

    PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
    Hash: SHA1

    David J. Hughes wrote:

    24/08/2006, at 3:43 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:

    >>

    >RFC 4363 Sec 10 (commonly referred to as A, B, and C).


    From operational experience, what are peoples thoughts on B vs
    C? I can image that multi-hopping the C solution could
    get ugly unless you have tight geographical / topological grouping of
    VPN endpoints in the peer AS.

    B can get messy if you need to pass lots and lots of route targets.
    Lots of manual coordination between the interconnecting ASNs.

    C can be more manageable if, as suggested in the RFC, the multihop
    eBGP sessions are limited to RRs in each ASN.

    - --
    bep

    PGP SIGNATURE
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    XgrssHiadAH5INQ9luTW5M4=
    =U6oo
    PGP SIGNATURE

    cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net

    archive at
  • No.4 | | 908 bytes | |

    (2006-08-24 08:53 +1000), David J. Hughes wrote:

    From operational experience, what are peoples thoughts on B
    vs C? I can image that multi-hopping the C solution
    could get ugly unless you have tight geographical / topological
    grouping of VPN endpoints in the peer AS.

    If it would be implemented as RFC requires, that is B would
    only allow labeled packets in that contain label, that it has
    previously advertised out. Then B would be clear choice when
    doing VPN interconnects with out organizations or with boxes
    that are not in controlled space (such as PE in customer
    premices).
    But as today both cisco and jnpr do not do this check, B
    is not very useful. You either tend to use A in eg. situations
    mentioned above, or if no such problem exists straight to C.

    I personally want to see label checking in B as soon
    as possible. A is really cumbersome.
  • No.5 | | 254 bytes | |

    (2006-08-25 09:09 +0300), Saku Ytti wrote:
    previously advertised out. Then B would be clear choice when
    doing VPN interconnects with out organizations or with boxes
    with /other/
    That is, with some other company or with customer etc.

Re: MPLS InterAS Drafts/RFC


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 1 + 0 =
QUESTION ON "Networking"

EMSDN.COM