From: David Prall (dcp@dcptech.com)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2007 - 14:52:02 ART
Configure everything MPLS, except for mpls ip on the physical interfaces. So
no LDP. The VRF is specific to a single router, rather then a network.
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/gov/turniton_vrf_v2.pdf
You'll end up with 35 VRF's on the CE router.
-- http://dcp.dcptech.com> -----Original Message----- > From: Shamin [mailto:ccie.xpert@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:01 PM > To: David Prall > Cc: Cisco certification > Subject: Re: MPLS VRF-lite problem > > Hi David, > > Thanks for you input. > > The ISP, will have one dot1q interface for each customer VPN > that is connecting the DC.That is , as there 35 VPN's, the PE > connecting to the DC CE will have 35 dot1q interfaces and > they charge the customer based on these sub interfaces( they > call it VPN ports). So I think the ISP will have a VRF for > each sub interface representing each of the customer VPNs > going to the DC. > > I am trying to understand exactly how VRF-lite works . If > anyone can send me link to > a configuration guide line, will be grateful. > > Thanks > Shameen > > > On Dec 5, 2007 6:44 PM, David Prall < dcp@dcptech.com> wrote: > > > Shamin, > The PE would need to send each VRF seperately over a > distinct dot1q tagged > vlan interface. You would need 35 seperate BGP neighbor > relationships. I > would suspect that the Carrier would rather not do this > because of scaling > issues. They are doing an import of 35 VRF's into a > single Data Center VRF, > then importing the Data Center into the 35 VRF's. While > the VRF's can't see > routes from each other, they all can see the Data > Center and the Data Center > can see all 35 VRF routes. This doesn't allow for > duplicate addressing. > > > -- > http://dcp.dcptech.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On > > Behalf Of Shamin > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:32 AM > > To: David Prall > > Cc: Cisco certification > > Subject: Re: MPLS VRF-lite problem > > > > Hi David, > > > > Thanks for your input. > > > > The ISP in this case is providing a 1GB Ethernet to the data > > centre CE from > > their PE. > > They will be providing one Dot1q interface per VPN. CE to PE > > connection is > > running EBGP. > > > > If the ISP who is handling the PE is just announcing the > > prefixes to the > > CE router, the CE router at the DC will be receiving all the > > routes of the > > sites > > through dot1q and will be seen in a single routing table. > > > > In this scenario, can the customer who does not > manage the PE router, > > configure VRF-lite on the CE without the PE router > sending the routes > > which are VRF aware. > > > > I am new to MPLS. I am still on the learning curve. If you > > can clarify this > > problem > > for me. BTW, the ISP is using Alcatel in their MPLS cloud. > > > > Regards > > Shameen > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 10:45 AM, David Prall <dcp@dcptech.com > wrote: > > > > > The CE to PE connection will require 35 > sub-interfaces. Either > > > Frame-Relay, > > > ATM PVC's, or dot1q will all work. The MPLS carrier > will drop off 35 > > > distinct VRF's via a single link. Now how the customer > > handles this, has > > > nothing to do with the MPLS Carrier. > > > > > > David > > > > > > -- > > > http://dcp.dcptech.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com ] On > > > > Behalf Of Shamin > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:25 PM > > > > To: Cisco certification > > > > Subject: MPLS VRF-lite problem > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > I have a small situation here. We are providing > an MPLS/VPN > > > > solution to a > > > > customer to connect > > > > their 35 sites which are different VPN's to the Data > > centre site. The > > > > connection to the Data centre, > > > > from the MPLS cloud will carry 35 VPN's. I understand > > that, normally > > > > VRF-lite is used between the > > > > PE and CE in this situation. The problem I face > is that the > > > > customer is > > > > taking the MPLS/VPN > > > > service from the ISP and the ISP is not willing > to accept the > > > > solution with > > > > VRF-lite as they say that, > > > > it will extend their MPLS cloud to the customer side. > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me, if this is actually the case. Running > > > > VRF-lite on a > > > > customer site, will it > > > > compromise the ISP's MPLS network. Is there any > problem the > > > > ISP will face > > > > by running > > > > VRF-lite in this senario. If there is any , what are the > > recommended > > > > general practices . > > > > > > > > Appreciate your valuable inputs. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Shameen > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > _________ > > > > 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 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:29 ARST