Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

From: Hyunseog Ryu <r.hyunseog () ieee org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:00:01 -0600

Overall, MLPPP may work fine with MPLS as long as you have single virtual circuit from each physical circuit.
Such as T1 channel from Channelized DS3...
But you have to use sub-interface (logical interface) other than sub-channel from channeliezed circuit,
you may have some problem.
If you want to use QoS with MLPPP, some cases you may have to disable CEF because of side effects.

Overall, what I was recommended by Cisco source, is, if possible, to use MLFR instead of MLPPP for MPLS integration.

If you need more information, you can contact your local Cisco System Engineer, and he/she will give more information to you.


Bill Stewart wrote:
I've also heard a variety of comments about difficulties in getting
Cisco MLPPP working in MPLS environments, mostly in the past year when
our product development people weren't buried in more serious problems
(:--)  I've got the vague impression that it was more buggy for N>2
than N=2.  There are a number of ways to bond NxT1 together, including
MLFR and IMA, and we've generally used IMA for ATM and MPLS services
and CEF for Internet.  IMA has the annoyance of extra ATM overhead,
but doesn't have problems with load-balancing or out-of-order
delivery, and we've used it long enough to be good at dealing with its
other problems.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]