Subject: Re: Static MPLS configuration

From: "Igor Achkinazi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:45:43

Sorry for confusion, I meant statically configured MPLS label, LSP, to be a 
logical interface. May be mplsTunnel (150) ifType is better for this kind of 
interface. It is not MPLS capability configuration over an interface. It is 
new subinterface, like ATM PVC over ATM physical link. My suggestion was not 
just gathering statistics, but use of such interface in a system as a 
regular layer 3 link.

Thanks,
Igor

>From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Igor Achkinazi" <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Static MPLS configuration
>Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:31:19 -0500
>
>
>>Does anybody use MPLS interface as a layer 3 logical interface, or
>>subinterface (part of a physical interface), like ATM PVC or Frame Relay
>>DLCI, with its own entry in ifTable (mpls(166) ifType from IANAifType-MIB)
>>and IP address associated with it?
>
>         I know of lots of vendors that support this, as it is the standard
>model for MPLS
>interface stacking.
>
>>Of course, it makes sense for static MPLS configuration of bidirectional
>>flows.
>
>         It makes sense from a configuration perspective because it allows
>a manager to determine if MPLS is configured on that interface, as well as
>allows them to configure MPLS on an existing interface. It also makes sense
>from a statistical gathering perspective because stacking an MPLS interface 
>on
>top of another physical interface such as Ethernet allows a manager to
>count just
>the MPLS traffic on that interface, as opposed to the (aggregate) enet 
>traffic,
>or anything else (IP).
>
>         --Tom
>
>
>>I think it can be useful for multiplexing of small traffic flows onto big
>>capacity MPLS trunk. Another possible application is eliminating of
>>complexity of forwarding adjacencies in routing protocols (LSP hierarchy
>>draft), where simple static MPLS path can be used as actual, not virtual
>>interface. In latter case MPLS interface can be even unnumbered, without
>>IP address.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Igor
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

---

From: "Dekany, Steven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:37:01 -0500

MPLS UNI solves this from a different direction. You may want to take a look
at that.

Best Regards,

Steven

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Achkinazi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Static MPLS configuration

Thanks,
Igor

---

From: "Dekany, Steven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:44:58 -0500

Igor,

I understand that you may not want to use UNI, it may be an overkill. 

BTW MPLS UNI "only" needs a subset of LDP signaling between CE and PE. In
theory there is no reason why hierarchical TE LSPs could not be configured,
since all is under the (potentially manual) control of the SP. So you can
set up a single default FEC with a single label on the interface, if that is
what is required, and then the LSP will "automatically" come up once the
link is up. Agree, that it is a unique application.

Best Regards,

Steven 

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Achkinazi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:53 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Static MPLS configuration

Thanks, Steven

However MPLS UNI implies MPLS signaling that adds complexity. In LSP 
hierarchy case it does not help at all. I intentionally asked about static 
configuration, because it is simple and easy to control. And it is much, 
much easier to implement.
Sorry, I do not want to use UNI :)

Best regards,
Igor

>From: "Dekany, Steven" <[email-masked]>
>To: Igor Achkinazi <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: Static MPLS configuration
>Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:37:01 -0500
>