Hi,
In my opinion, in this case you will connect two customer's VLANs on L2.
I mean in this configuration you will make on XMR L2 bridge between
those two VLANs.
If this is what you wanted - it will work. If you would like to
"aggregate" customer's VLANs into single VPLS cloud without enabling
bridging between them, I think you should use QinQ (probably on
aggregation switch).
Best Regards
Tomek
Lazuardi Nasution pisze:
Hi Tomasz,
What happen if I attach some differents VLAN on the same VPLS cloud ?
Let assume that each node is connected to the same VPLS Router via the
same Aggregation Switch with following scripts.
On the VPLS Router:
vpls CompanyA 10000
vlan 100
tag ethernet 1/1 -> this port is connected to Aggregation Switch
vlan 200
tag ethernet 1/1 -> this port is connected to Aggregation Switch
On Aggregation Switch:
vlan 100
untag ethernet 1/1 -> this port is connected to Node A1 of Company A
tag ethernet 1/24 -> this port is connected to VPLS Router
vlan 200
untag ethernet 1/2 -> this port is connected to Node A2 of Company A
tag ethernet 1/24 -> this port is connected to VPLS Router
If we can use that script with no problem, I think we can use VLAN
Based Rate Limit since each node of same subscriber/company can be
mapped to different VLAN.
Best regards,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Tomasz Szewczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I think now I got your point. In my opinion placing the RLs depends on what
is the service definition for the customer. I think the simplest solution is
to put RL on access interface, but in case of VPLS-like services
(many-to-many) it is not so easy to predict traffic amount in the core. For
example if customer wants to connect 5 sites with 100Mbps, I would put input
rate-limit and output rate-shaping (both 100Mbps) for each access interface.
RL should limit traffic entering the core and priority/DSCP based rate
shaping avoid (or manage) congestion on output interface.
Best Regards
Tomek
Lazuardi Nasution pisze:
Hi Tomasz,
What if there are some another CEs of the same subscriber/company
which are connected to the same aggregation switch ? I think I must
assign them into the same VLAN for making them to be the same member
of VPLS cloud ? If so, the traffic from a CE to the another CE will
not traverse to VPLS Router. In that case, VLAN based RL on VPLS
Router side cannot be used.
Best regards,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Szewczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
I think you can use vlan baser RL but in this case I would suggest to run
STP on access switches and for some VPLS instances (it is possible on 3.8
or
3.9 code on XMR as Topology Group). This would give you better control on
limits applied for the customer, because you can setup primary and
secondary
active port. I mean something like on attached picture. You can apply the
same RL on ports A and B. The port B should be blocked by STP, hence all
customer traffic will be limited by policer on port A. In case of failure
port B becomes active and all customer traffic will be limited by policer
applied to port B.
But this relies on STP - so in my opinion it is the last thing you should
do
;-) Additional problem is L2 VLAN for STP control. The main disadvantage
is
that VPLS can not be used for STP control, so you have to connect XMRs
via
L2 (in our network we don't have such connections).
Regards
Tomek
Lazuardi Nasution pisze:
Hi Tomasz,
The configuration is like attached picture. Each aggregation switch is
connected to two VPLS Routers as a ring. I use two VPLS Router for
redundancy. Each subscriber device will be connected to one or two
aggregation switches side. So, I think the port based rate limitting
must be done on aggregation switches. I have no idea if I could use
VLAN based rate limitting on the VPLS router side since there are some
subsribers which have more than one node connected to the same
aggregation switch.
Best regards.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Tomasz Szewczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
1. Anyone has experience with the VPLS/VLL redundancy where each
subscriber node is connected to diffrent PE Router (NetIron MLX/XMR) ?
I need some configuration brief about that. The whitepapers are very
helpful too.
We used transparent BPDU flooding over VPLS instance, so it was
possible
to
run STP on L2 devices connected to XMRs (bot not on XMRs)
It is possible to enable it on interface:
no vpls-bpdu-block
However I used this only in case when L2 devices were under our
administration. Running this option on customer's interface is a little
bit
risky because in case of L2 loop created by customer, the control plane
of
XMRs can be affected. However there is cpu-protection option, but I
think
it
will not protect you against "loop" MAC learning.
2. Is it possible to map different VLANs into the same VPLS cloud ?
Yes - you just need to type:
vlan xxx
tag/untag e8/1
vlan yyy
tag/untag e8/2
Or you just setup different VLANs on remote VPLS endpoints. It works
:-)
3. I need some suggestion of FastIron Edge products which have port
based incoming and outgoing rate limitting with 64kbps granularity. I
will combine it on my design with NetIron MLX/XMR for making VPLS/VLL
provider.
Unfortunately I don't have a lot of experiences with FastIron series,
but
last times I successfully tested rate-shaping for VPLS based on DSCP in
customer's IP packets. It works fine too :-)
Regards
Tomek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
[email protected]
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
