I may not be able to use this option then as I have no control of MTU
between the sites, and I am assuming it is 1500 bytes. No room for MPLS
headers. Not sure I can get the throughput with L2TPv3 unless this can
be done in HW on some platform.
On 10/13/2011 09:19 AM, Ge Moua wrote:
Once upon a time, we too did this between two sites about 90 miles
apart with:
* a transport in the middle with a partner/service provider doing MPLS
CsC
* on the edge sites with EoMPLS
lesson learned:
* as previously mentioned already, do as large MTU as possible for all
transit links
* large MTU at the core
we had a situation where we forgot to enable jumbo frame one of the
core transit links & needless to say traffic traversing that path was
being dropped if pkt size was greater than that specify MTU (which was
just the default of 1500); fix was to enable jumbo frame there too
then all was working
MPLS is pretty unforgiving in that area (also as previously mentioned)
--
Regards,
Ge Moua
Univ of Minn Alumnus
--
On 10/12/11 3:02 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Jason,
There is no fragmentation in MPLS. Either you can forward the packet, or
it is dropped.
You need to either have a larger MTU on the core (usually the way it is
implemented today), or reduce MTU at both sides.
As this is a L2 link, you can't use things like MSS adjust etc...
Arie
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason LeBlanc
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 20:53
To: [email protected]
Subject: [c-nsp] EoMPLS ?s
We're considering using EoMPLS port mode to bridge two datacenters
together temporarily for a move using sup720-3BXL on both ends with 6724
blades, probably 2 or 4 gig links, possibly 10g if I can get them to buy
the HW. The question I have primarily is with regard to MTU. I have
heard there are issues with ensuring both sides match, not much concern
there. But the network between the two facilities may be lower than the
1518 bytes, causing fragmentation. I know this gets punted to the RP,
and is going to be a problem. Is there any work around?
Thanks,
Jason
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
