: MPLS Simulator for Windows

Hi all,

Is there any MPLS simulator available for windows ???

Thanks
Tahir

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

: Re: Layer 2 VPN over MPLS Configuration

Good Day . 

I've configured the PE100 - P - PE 200 Ethernet over
MPLS (VLAN). 

Well its running smoothly. (credit to those engineer
from previous email) 

The only problem, is the CE. I'm using two notebook
for both ends. CE 100 and CE 200.

The network topology :

PC ( CE100 ) --- Switch ---7200 Cisco VXR(New
IOS)PE100 --
P (Cisco 7200 ) -- PE 200( 7200 Cisco)--switch --
PC(Ce200)

There is only one switch actually. 

What should i configure for both PC . I would like to
test tranfering file between those CE and trace route
between CE 100 to CE 200 . 

Thanks .

regards

Irwan -Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

: Multi-vendor in MPLS domain

RE: : Multi-vendor in MPLS domain

RE: : Multi-vendor in MPLS domain

RE: : Multi-vendor in MPLS domain

Thamir

The point U are raising is so broad that it could not be answered in one msg 
.

Their is many event where interoperaility for certain function are being 
tested , search the internet for "Interoperability  X  Y " where X and Y are 
the manufacturer U are interested in .

Divide the problem :

A) For P Interoperability
    Area : LDP , IGP (IS-IS or OSPF) , MPLS-TE , FRR, ...etc .
             Study each area (it need some lab test )
B) For PE Interoperability
     Area : BGP , MP-BGP , BGP/MPLS VPN , Psuedowire Service ,VPLS ...etc .
              Study each area ((it need some lab test ) .
C) Tool modification for OAM ,Training OPS team
     This is one area which  normally a stop/block the deployment of new 
type of box as the initial
      capex is quite high .

Point "A" is the simplest one , followed by "B" and "C" .

In Reality :

1- having another Box is mainly strategic decision and not just financily .
    Why :  U Current provider X will offer U some discount which make the 
cost of integrating
               box from provider Y not very cost wise attractive .

              People/Staff  (OPS , Instl ...etc ) do not like the change .

              Managesr do not like the risk (they do not want  to be disturb 
at midnight ).

             Do not under estimate the influence of the current provider X 
within U company .

   Finally it is a company culture , some  are open and they have the 
knowledge and resource
   to test and deploy (if it fit their requirement ) new box even from small 
manufacturer
    (i once read that World com was very open to test and deploy any good 
box even from
      startup ). Other adopt the religion of "do not touche it as far as it 
is working " .

  2- I saw but did not participated in some interoperability project , it is 
quite big we are
     talking about 8-10 man/year for PE mainly for BGP/MPLS VPN . Recall 
that U also need to test
     the new provider Y box for througput ....etc .

     Make sure that the candidate box provider Y is behind U and will 
allocate the needed resource to
    help U , Some test (U define the script but they do the actual testing ) 
could be carried by box
     provider Y .

3- Finally , if the company do not have the resource they could hire a 
consultancy firm to carry
   the job . Also  it minimize the personal risk  (no need to be a 
dead/Jobless hero )

N.B: i am based in SA , U could contact me on my email .

Brgds
>From: "Thamir M.Al Hammad" <thammad <at> stc.com.sa>
>To: "vishwanathan mv" <cheerfulmvp <at> yahoo.com>, <mpls-ops <at> mplsrc.com>
>Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: Multi-vendor in MPLS domain
>Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:32:44 +0300
>
>
>Thanks Padmini for your prompt replay,
>But what services you are running? Any NGN?
>Do you have mix of PEs? Or mix of Ps (mix in the core)?
>
>Br,
>Thamir
>
>
>   _____
>
>From: vishwanathan mv [mailto:cheerfulmvp <at> yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:09 AM
>To: Thamir M.Al Hammad
>Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: Multi-vendor in MPLS domain
>
>Yes of course its practical.  We in India very much have this kind of
>configuration and things work fine provided you find the compatible
>routers.
>
>- Padmini
>
>"Thamir M.Al Hammad" <thammad <at> stc.com.sa> wrote:
>	Hi,
>
>	I want to know your opinion regarding running MPLS from
>multi-vendors, is it practical? I mean the PE from vendor and the P from
>other vendor or  mix of PEs and Ps from different vendors? Specially, in
>NGN environment where no doubt about TE, QoS, L2VPN & multicasting.
>	I am afraid about this because I think any of these technologies
>still draft in IETF and there are different philosophies from different
>vendors.
>
>	Do you know any case which successful or failed? Any white
>paper? What is the possible risk?
>
>	Br,
>	Thamir  Alhammad
>
>
>Disclaimer: The information in this email and in any files transmitted
>with it,
>is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or
>privileged material.
>Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you receive this
>in error,
>please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any
>computer.
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>distribution or
>any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly
>prohibited.
>Statement and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender,
>and do not
>necessarily reflect those of STC.
>   _____
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Make Yahoo! your home page
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/my/navbar/sethp/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
>Disclaimer: The information in this email and in any files transmitted with 
>it,
>is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or 
>privileged material.
>Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you receive this in 
>error,
>please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any 
>computer.
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
>distribution or
>any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly 
>prohibited.
>Statement and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender, 
>and do not
>necessarily reflect those of STC.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

RE: : Multi-vendor in MPLS domain

: What it mean by " LSP Trace"

Hi

Consider the following :

PE1-----Netw cloud1 --P1-------Netw Cloud2---P2---Netw Cloud3--PE2 .

TE1 LSP between PE1 to  P1 , TE2 LSP between P1 to P2 , TE3 LSP between P2 
to PE2 .

(Targetd LDP between PE1& P1 , P1 & P2 , and P2 and PE2 ) .

Say when we trace the LDP LSP of PE2 from PE1 .

is the trace output = P1,P2,PE2 ,let us call it  "Plain trace"

or

The trace outpt is all transit nodes actually traversed= .
PE1,Nodes In ntew cloud1 , P1 ,Nodes in netw cloud2 ,P2,Nodes in netw 
cloud3,PE2 .
let us call it "Recursive Trace" .

My question :

1- when the "LSP trace"  wording is used , is it mean "Plain trace" or 
"Recursive trace" ??
2- My guess that the operator shoud be given the option to request either 
the "Plain Trace"
   or the "Recursive Trace" .
   For the above setup : say P1 advertise label L1 for PE2 FEC to PE1 .
   "Plain Trace"= PE1 will increment the TTL value for L1 and not the top 
most labels (labels above
    - ie: nearest the top - L1 in the stack  ) . The top most labels (above 
L1) will have TTL=255 .
      we assume that all TE LSP are pipe or short pipe model .

    "Recursive Trace" =
PE1 will increment the top most label while any label beneath this top most 
loabel will have TTL=1 .
By this PE1 , will trace all nodes in Netw_Cloud1 and P1 .
say this occur at TTL=10 ,and the reply will be from P1 .
at TTL=11 , the reply will also come from P1 , this indicate to PE1 that it 
is now to start to
increment the TTL of the label beneath the top most label . ie: the next 
attempt the top
most label will have TTL=11 , and the label beneath (L1 in our case) will 
have TTL=2 .
But since TE LSP's are pipe or short pipe the output of the trace will be :
Nodes in Netw_cloud1,P1,P2,PE2 .
we will not be able to find out the nodes in netw_cloud2 and nodes in 
netw_cloud3 ??

is this a correct conclusion ?? .
How we could trace nodes in netw_cloud2 and netw_cloud3 ??

3- My guess that "Recursive trace" is only possible if the TE LSP's are 
Uniform model , but in this
   case "Plain trace" is not possible .
   is the above a true statement ???.

Brgds

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

: LSP PING - DownStream TLV - Csco Nanong Presentation

Hi

1- For the presentation :
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0501/moizuddin.html
page 33 .

For the left hand text box :
is the downstream interface addr should be 10.200.12.1 (as inidicated in the 
slide ) or it
should be 10.200.12.2 .

For the Righ hand text box :

is the downstream interface addr should be 10.200.23.2 (as inidicated in the 
slide ) or it
should be 10.200.23.3 .

If the values listed in the presenation are correct , could U pls explain 
the reason as it seem
it conflict with the draft (ver 8)  section 3.3.2 "Downstream Router & 
Interface" .

2- Do U know any other presentation/doc which  explain the LSP-Ping and the 
Traceroute with Downstream Mapping TLV in details (with examples ) .

Brgds

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

: Info required regarding l2-vpn/l3-vpn doc