MLPPP over MPLS

Rodney Dunn rodunn at cisco.com
Wed Feb 22 13:56:00 UTC 2006


For more specific discussion we can move it over to cisco-nsp
but here is a general document on it.

http://cco/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00801f26c8.html#wp1045653

Rodney


On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:00:01PM -0600, Hyunseog Ryu wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Hyun
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   



More information about the NANOG mailing list