RE: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs
jordan.britnell@bell.ca Thu, 09 December 2004 17:45 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14532; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:45:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CcST3-0002Ri-KP; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:52:44 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CcSAE-0006LW-Ko; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:33:14 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CcS20-00045o-N6 for mpls@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:44 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12218 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:24:42 -0500 (EST)
From: jordan.britnell@bell.ca
Received: from bellwfep2-srv.bellnexxia.net ([207.236.237.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CcS91-0001to-Ip for mpls@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:32:00 -0500
Received: from dm3cn8.bell.ca ([206.47.0.145]) by bellwfep2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20041209172412.PDKS1861.bellwfep2-srv.bellnexxia.net@dm3cn8.bell.ca>; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:24:12 -0500
Received: from 142.182.89.79dm3cn8.bell.ca with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:06 -0500
X-Server-Uuid: D4A4E604-913A-4A1B-8C07-2866D92AD410
Received: from TOROONDC915.bell.corp.bce.ca ([142.182.89.18]) by TOROONDC918.bell.corp.bce.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:24:06 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:05 -0500
Message-ID: <5BA2482D51EA8440B36B8329127619B8015F83A6@Toroondc915.bell.corp.bce.ca>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs
Thread-Index: AcTeC7Cgcqbv4FHUQbK7fHyzKYWiCQAAqhUAAAEW1wAAAC5/4A==
To: kurien_joseph@agilent.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2004 17:24:06.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2CA7340:01C4DE13]
X-WSS-ID: 6DA655BC513735-01-01
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0634ec58aad05a6aa9ac7d4670be9c6c
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1429109088=="
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 778b456acd32f555185589e04d062871
Sort of. The part up to tunnel lookup is correct. TOS stamping takes place on the CE along with some sort of rate limiting usually. Mapping the packets to tunnels would be done on a routing basis I believe. If I'm not mistaken you can also use half-duplex VRF to do this as well. As the CE TOS bit is encapsulated in the MPLS info the experimental bit will be used. Make sense? Jordan Britnell, CCNA IP Technology Research BCE/Bell Canada (416) 215-3729 jordan.britnell@bell.ca -----Original Message----- From: kurien_joseph@agilent.com [mailto:kurien_joseph@agilent.com] Sent: December 9, 2004 12:16 PM To: Britnell, Jordan (5000008); kurien_joseph@agilent.com Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: RE: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs Does it imply that the CEs linked to the ingress PE would send IP packet's TOS field to mark a QoS service. And additionally the PE would lookup the TOS field on all its inbound CE interfaces and mark EXP bit and forward them to any of the TE tunnels that which may have an EXP bit mapping? Thanks Kurien ________________________________ From: jordan.britnell@bell.ca [mailto:jordan.britnell@bell.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 8:46 AM To: kurien_joseph@agilent.com Subject: RE: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs Absolutely. You can use half-duplex VRF routing as well as MPLS experimental bits to define how you would like traffic from a customer to be handled. A search on Cisco's site will show you the necessary steps. Jordan Britnell, CCNA IP Technology Research BCE/Bell Canada (416) 215-3729 jordan.britnell@bell.ca -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org] On Behalf Of kurien_joseph@agilent.com Sent: December 9, 2004 11:25 AM To: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs Can QoS be applied to Layer 3 MPLS VPNs in such a manner that, two customers connected to the same ingress PE router but offered two types of services like GoldVoIP and SilverVoIP and two TE tunnels having different Path options but terminating together on a common egress PE? Since the Egress PE for the both VPNs is the same, is it possible to have VPN traffic classified and routed to different tunnels? Could someone pass a link to any cisco or juniper configuration guide ? Thanks Kurien R & D Engineer, MPLS/VPN Assurance OSSD, Agilent Technologies. Tel : 916 788 6678 ( TELNET 788 6678)
_______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs kurien_joseph
- RE: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs kurien_joseph
- RE: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs jordan.britnell
- Re: [mpls] Applying Qos on VPNs Sam Munzani