From: Sumit (sumit.kumar@comcast.net)
Date: Thu Mar 17 2005 - 23:57:48 GMT-3
Tim,
The MQC doesn't specify a way to match traffic on next hop(a f a i k). So as
u mentioned even traffic not destined to B and C will also be kicked to C.
Hey keep your optimism up, I'm also in the same boat.
There is a "number" waiting for us.
Sumit
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
To: "'Sumit'" <sumit.kumar@comcast.net>; "'Group Study'"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:07 PM
Subject: RE: MQC vs Policy Routing
> Sumit,
>
> Thanks for getting back to me. I really appreciate it.
>
> Your example shows me the piece I was missing - that "match ip next-hop
10".
>
> Damn it, there's always something.
>
> As best as you can tell, what's wrong with the MQC method?
>
> As I said, I did a little testing and it seemed to work but I didn't have
a
> chance to test every possibility.
>
> Thanks again, Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Sumit
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 7:48 PM
> To: ccie2be; Group Study
> Subject: Re: MQC vs Policy Routing
>
> Tim,
>
> PBR is the best match for this solution, you will use PBR route-map as:
>
> access-list 10 permit <RB FR intreface add>
> access-list 10 permit <RC FR interface add>
>
> access-list 101 permit ip vlan1 any prec 3
>
> route-map 10 IF-IP-PREC-3-GOTO-RC
> match ip add 101
> match ip next-hop 10
> set ip next-hop (RA-RC int)
> set ip default next-hop (RA-RB int)
>
> and apply policy-route map to E0/0
>
> hth
> Sumit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:54 AM
> Subject: MQC vs Policy Routing
>
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> >
> >
> > This problem stumped me. I didn't like either of the 2 solutions that
> came
> > to mind and would like to hear your thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> > =============================
> >
> > Figure 1
> >
> >
> >
> > / -- R-B
> >
> > | ---- e0/0 R-A -- p2m f/r other networks with
> different
> > major network addresses
> >
> > \ -- R-C
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> >
> > Figure 2
> >
> >
> >
> > R-A e0/0 ---- vlan 1 ------ R-d ----- R-e
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > R-A is connected to vlan 1 via it's e0/0 interface and to R-d via vlan 1
> and
> > other subnets beyond that. (Fig 2)
> >
> >
> >
> > R-A is also connected to R-B and R-C via p2m f/r and can reach other
> > networks behind R-B and R-C (Fig 1)
> >
> >
> >
> > I want R-A to forward packets that originate on vlan 1 and are heading
to
> > R-B or R-C or beyond and have an ip prec of x to take the pvc to R-C if
> it's
> > available.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the pvc or R-C is down, take the other pvc. All networks behind R-B
or
> > R-C can be reached via either pvc.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how to config this.
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought of policy routing but this was the problem I couldn't figure
> out.
> > Suppose packets originating on vlan 1 weren't suppose to head towards
R-B
> or
> > R-C? Wouldn't they just end up going to R-C or R-B only for these
routers
> > to send them back to R-A. ? And, thus waste bandwidth?
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the pseudo code:
> >
> >
> >
> > route-map 10 IF-IP-PREC-3-GOTO-RC
> >
> > match ip-prec-3 and source = vlan1
> >
> > set ip next-hop R-C
> >
> >
> >
> > route-map 20 IF-IP-PREC-3-GOTO-RC
> >
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > The other solution I thought of was to use MQC:
> >
> >
> >
> > Assume the dlci to R-B = dlci-B and the dlci to R-C = dlci-C.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the pseudo code:
> >
> >
> >
> > access-list 100 permit ip vlan1 any prec 3
> >
> >
> >
> > class-map match-all IP-PREC
> >
> > match int e0/0 <-- Is this needed?
> >
> > match ip address 100
> >
> >
> >
> > policy-map IP-PREC
> >
> > class IP-PREC
> >
> > set fr-dlci <pvc-C>
> >
> >
> >
> > int f/r p2m
> >
> > service-policy out IP-PREC
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > I never used the set fr-dlci command before and so I'm not 100% sure
this
> > solution actually works but I pretty sure it does. (I put an acl on R-C
> and
> > then did some pings and saw the matching packets go up but I didn't do
any
> > other testing.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Q?
> >
> >
> >
> > Will both solutions actually work?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the MQC solution better?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a better solution I didn't think of?
> >
> >
> >
> > TIA, Tim
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:47 GMT-3