Re: MPLS VPN: Why two lables?

If we had no overlapping, we could do MPLS VPN with one label, isn't it?

> It's like asking why we use 2 encapsulations for QinQ.

Oh well, yeah it sounds like that =)))

> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04678905

No, it is closed from public =)

On 3 July 2011 21:47, Paul Negron <negron.paul_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> It's just like the ATM days. You need one label to represent the Virtual
> Path and one label to represent the Virtual Connection.
>
> A Tunnel within a Tunnel.
>

>
> Paul
> --
> Paul Negron
> CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
> Senior Technical Instructor
> www.micronicstraining.com
>
>
>
>> From: marc abel <marcabel_at_gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: marc abel <marcabel_at_gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:13:49 -0500
>> To: Vladimir Osipenko <tiffolk_at_gmail.com>
>> Cc: <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>> Subject: Re: MPLS VPN: Why two lables?
>>
>> The biggest efficiency with the labels might be that P routers don't
>> have to speak BGP, they just need to know the routes to the BGP
>> speaking PE routers.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Vladimir Osipenko <tiffolk_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, Guys!
>>>
>>> Despite reading books and articles, I simply don't get it: why we must
>>> use two lables for MPLS VPN instead of using one label, but without
>>> PHP?
>>>
>>> Is it because every P router will need to know customer routes? Any
>>> other reasons?
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun Jul 03 2011 - 22:06:11 ART