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