Traffic ENg. MPLS TE Resume

DEPLOYING MPLS TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING
SESSION RST-2603
RST-2603
9866_05_2004_c2 © 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 1
Some Assumptions
• You understand basic IP routing

• You understand MPLS concepts and operation
• You understand how a link-state protocol works
• Some knowledge of QoS is useful
• You will still be awake at the end of this
RST-2603
© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

9866_05_2004_c2
A Blatant Plug
• Traffic Engineering
with MPLS
ISBN: 1-58705-031-5
• Now available in
Portuguese and
Chinese!
RST-2603
Agenda
• Traffic Engineering Overview

• Traffic Engineering Theory
• Configuration
• Protection
• Diffserv Traffic Engineering (DS-TE)
• Design and Scalability
• MPLS-VPN, Multicast and TE
• Summary
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
OVERVIEW
RST-2603
Network vs. Traffic Engineering
• Network engineering
Build your network to carry your predicted traffic
• Traffic engineering
Manipulate your traffic to fit your network
• Traffic patterns are impossible to accurately predict

• Symmetric bandwidths/topologies, asymmetric load
• TE can be done with IGP costs, ATM/FR, or MPLS
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Motivation for Traffic Engineering
• Increase efficiency of bandwidth resources

Prevent over-utilized (congested) links whilst other links
are under-utilized
• Ensure the most desirable/appropriate path for
some/all traffic
Override the shortest path selected by the IGP
• Replace ATM/FR cores
PVC-like traffic placement without IGP full mesh and
associated O(N^2) flooding
• The ultimate goal is COST SAVING
Service development also progressing
RST-2603
The “Fish” Problem (Shortest Path)
R3
R8
R4
R5
R2
R1
R6 R7
• IP uses shortest path destination-based routing

• Shortest path may not be the only path
• Alternate paths may be under-utilized
• Whilst the shortest path is over-utilized
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Shortest Path and Congestion
20Mbps 60Mbps 26Mbps
traffic to R5 aggregate R3 drops!
R8
R4
OC3
E3 (155Mbps)
OC3 (34Mbps) R5
R2 (155Mbps)
GigE
R1 (1Gbps)
GigE
(1Gbps)
R6 GigE R7
(1Gbps)
40Mbps
traffic to R5
RST-2603
The TE Solution
20Mbps 20Mbps traffic
traffic to R5 R3 to R5 from R8
R8
R4
R5
R2
40Mbps traffic
to R1 from R8
R1
R6 R7
40Mbps
traffic to R5
• MPLS Labels can be used to engineer explicit paths
• Tunnels are UNI-DIRECTIONAL
Normal path: R8 Î R2 Î R3 Î R4 Î R5
Tunnel path: R1 Î R2 Î R6 Î R7 Î R4
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Terminology
• Constrained-Based Shortest Path First (CSPF)

MPLS-TE uses CSPF to create a shortest path based
on a series of constraints:
Bandwidth
Affinity/link attributes
…or an explicitly configured path
• Tunnels are UNI-DIRECTIONAL!
HEADEND MIDPOINT TAILEND
Upstream Tunnel Direction Downstream

RST-2603
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
THEORY
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Traffic Engineering Components
• Information distribution
• Path selection/calculation
• Path setup
• Trunk admission control
• Forwarding traffic on to tunnel
• Path maintenance
RST-2603
Information Distribution
• Need to flood TE information (Resource Attributes)

across the network
Available bandwidth per priority level, a few other things
• IGP extensions flood this information

OSPF uses Type 10 (area-local) Opaque LSAs
ISIS uses new TLVs
• Basic IGP: {self, neighbors, cost to neighbors}

• TE extensions: {self, neighbors, cost to neighbors,
available bandwidth to neighbors}
• TE bandwidth is a control-plane number only
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Path Calculation
• Once available bandwidth information and attributes are

flooded, router may calculate a path from head to tail
Path may be explicitly configured by operator
• TE Headend does a “Constrained SPF” (CSPF)
calculation to find the best path
• CSPF is just like regular IGP SPF, except
Takes required bandwidth and attributes into account
• Looks for best path from a head to a single tail
(unlike OSPF)
• Minimal impact on CPU utilization using CSPF
• Path can also be explicitly configured
RST-2603
Path Setup
• Once the path is calculated, it must be signaled

across the network
Reserve any bandwidth to avoid “double booking” from
other TE reservations
Priority can be used to pre-empt low priority existing
tunnels
• RSVP used to set up TE LSP
PATH messages (from head to tail) carries
LABEL_REQUEST
RESV messages (from tail to head) carries LABEL
• When RESV reaches headend, tunnel interface = UP
• RSVP messages exist for LSP teardown and
error sig
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Trunk Admission Control
• On receipt of PATH message

Router will check there is bandwidth available to honour
the reservation
If bandwidth available then RSVP accepted
• On receipt of a RESV message

Router actually reserves the bandwidth for the TE LSP
If pre-emption is required lower priority LSP are torn down
• OSPF/ISIS updates are triggered
RST-2603
Path Setup Example

R8 R9
R3
R4 10
30
PATH
Message R2 RESV
Pop message
20Mbps
R5
R1 60
80 50
70 32
60
40
49 27 R6 R7
80
100
22
RSVP PATH: R1 Î R2 Î R6 Î R7 Î R4 Î R9
RSVP RESV: Returns labels and reserves
bandwidth on each link
80 Bandwidth available
49 Returned label via RESV message
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Forwarding Traffic to a Tunnel
• Static routing
• Policy routing
Global table only—not from VRF at present
• Autoroute
• Forwarding Adjacency
Static, autoroute, and forwarding adjacency get you

unequal-cost load-balancing
RST-2603
Autoroute
• Used to include TE LSP in SPF calculations

• IGP adjacency is NOT run over the tunnel!
• Tunnel is treated as a directly connected link
to the tail
When tunnel tail is seen in PATH list during IGP SPF,
replace outgoing physical interface with tunnel interface
Inherit tunnel to all downstream neighbors of said tail
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Autoroute Topology (OSPF and ISIS)
R8
R3
R4
R2
R1
R5
R6 R7
Tunnel1: R1 ÎR2 Î R3 Î R4 Î R5
Tunnel2: R1 ÎR6 Î R7 Î R4
RST-2603
Autoroute Topology (OSPF and ISIS)

R8
R3
R4
R2
R1
R5
R6 R7
From R1 router perspective:

Next hop to R4 and R8 is Tunnel1
Next hop to R5 is Tunnel2
All nodes behind tunnel routed via tunnel
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Forwarding Adjacency
• Autoroute does not advertise the LSP into the IGP

• There may be a requirement to advertise the
existence of TE tunnels to upstream routers
Like an ATM/FR PVC—attract traffic to a router regardless
of the cost of the underlying physical network cost
• Useful as a drop-in replacement for ATM/FR

(and during migration)
• Can get suboptimal forwarding (NOT loops) if
you’re not careful
RST-2603
Forwarding Adjacency
R3 R4 All links use
cost of 10
R2 R5
R1
R9
R8
R6
IGP Cost = 40
R7
Tunnel: R2 ÎR3 Î R7 Î R4 Î R5
R1 shortest path to R9 via IGP
Tunnel at R2 is never used as R1 can’t see it
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Advertise TE Links into IGP
R3 R4 FA IGP Cost = 10
R2 R5
R1
R9
R8
R6
IGP Cost = 30
R7
Tunnel: R2 ÎR3 Î R4 Î R5
R1 shortest path to R9
RST-2603
Load Balancing Across FA

IGP Cost = 30
R2 R5
R1
R9
R8
R6
R7
Tunnel: R2 ÎR3 Î R4 Î R5
R1 shortest path to R9
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Unequal Cost Load Balancing
• IP routing has equal-cost load balancing, but not

unequal cost*
• Unequal cost load balancing difficult to do while
guaranteeing a loop-free topology
• Since MPLS doesn’t forward based on IP header,
permanent routing loops don’t happen
• 16 hash buckets for next-hop, shared in rough
proportion to configured tunnel bandwidth or load-
share value
*EIGRP Has ‘Variance’, but That’s Not as Flexible

RST-2603
Unequal Cost: Example 1
Router F
Router A 40MB Router E
Router G
20MB
gsr1#show ip route 192.168.1.8

Routing entry for 192.168.1.8/32
Known via "isis", distance 115, metric 83, type level-2
Redistributing via isis
Last update from 192.168.1.8 on Tunnel0, 00:00:21 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 192.168.1.8, from 192.168.1.8, via Tunnel0
Route metric is 83, traffic share count is 2
192.168.1.8, from 192.168.1.8, via Tunnel1
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Router F
Router A 40MB Router E
Router G
20MB
gsr1#sh ip cef 192.168.1.8 internal

………
Load distribution: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (refcount 1)
Hash OK Interface Address Packets Tags imposed
1 Y Tunnel0 point2point 0 {23}
………
Note That the Load Distribution

Is 11:5—Very Close to 2:1, but Not Quite!
RST-2603
Router F
Router A Router E
100MB
10MB
1MB Router G
gsr1#sh ip rou 192.168.1.8

Routing entry for 192.168.1.8/32
Known via "isis", distance 115, metric 83, type level-2
Redistributing via isis
Last update from 192.168.1.8 on Tunnel2, 00:00:08 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 192.168.1.8, from 192.168.1.8, via Tunnel0
192.168.1.8, from 192.168.1.8, via Tunnel1
192.168.1.8, from 192.168.1.8, via Tunnel2
Q: How Does 100:10:1 Fit Into a 16-Deep Hash?

RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Router F
Router A Router E
100MB
10MB
1MB Router G
gsr1#sh ip cef 192.168.1.8 internal

………
Load distribution: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (refcount 1)
Hash OK Interface Address Packets Tags imposed

………
A: Any Way It Wants to! 15:1, 14:2, 13:2:1, it depends
on the order the tunnels come up
Deployment Guideline: Don’t use tunnel metrics
that don’t reduce to 16 buckets!
RST-2603
Path Maintenance
• Steady-state information load is low

Especially with refresh reduction (RFC2961)
• Path re-optimization
Process where some traffic trunks are rerouted to new
paths so as to improve the overall efficiency in bandwidth
utilization
For example, traffic may be moved to secondary path
during failure; when primary path is restored traffic
moved back
• Path restoration
Comprised of two techniques; local protection
(link and node) and path protection
Discussed later in protection section
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
CONFIGURATION
RST-2603
Prerequisite Configuration (Global)
ip cef [distributed]
mpls traffic-eng tunnels
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
• OSPF
mpls traffic-eng router-id loopback0
mpls traffic-eng area ospf-area
• ISIS
mpls traffic-eng router-id loopback0
mpls traffic-eng level-x
metric-style wide
RST-2603
• On each physical interface

interface pos0/0
ip rsvp bandwidth Kbps (Optional)
mpls traffic-eng attribute-flags attributes (Opt)
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Build a Tunnel Interface (Headend)
interface Tunnel0
ip unnumbered loopback0
tunnel destination RID-of-tail
tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 10
RST-2603
Tunnel Attributes
interface Tunnel0
tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth Kbps
tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority pri [hold-pri]
tunnel mpls traffic-eng affinity properties [mask]
tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Path Calculation
• Dynamic path calculation
int Tunnel0
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option # dynamic
• Explicit path calculation

int Tunnel0
tunnel mpls traffic path-opt # explicit name foo
ip explicit-path name foo
next-address 1.2.3.4 [loose]
next-address 1.2.3.8 [loose]
RST-2603
Multiple Path Calculations
• A tunnel interface can have several path options,

to be tried successively
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 10 explicit name foo
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 20 explicit name bar
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 30 dynamic
• Path-options can each have their own bandwidth

tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 10 explicit name foo
bandwidth 100
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 20 explicit name bar
bandwidth 50
RST-2603
bandwidth 0

9866_05_2004_c2
LSP Attributes
Configure on Tunnel: • Attribute list options

tunnel mpls traffic-eng path- affinity
option 10 dynamic attributes
foo auto-bw
bandwidth
lockdown
priority
Attribute list ‘foo’ is defined at: protection
mpls traffic-eng lsp record-route

attributes foo
bandwidth 25
priority 2 2
RST-2603
Static and Policy Routing Down a Tunnel
• Static routing
ip route prefix mask Tunnel0
• Policy routing (Global Table)

access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq www
interface Serial0
ip policy route-map foo
route-map foo
match ip address 101
set interface Tunnel0
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Autoroute and Forwarding Adjacency
interface Tunnel0
OR
tunnel mpls traffic-eng forwarding-adjacency
isis metric x level-y (ISIS)
ip ospf cost ospf-cost (OSPF)
RST-2603
Summary Configuration (1/2)
ip cef (distributed}
interface Tunnel0
tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
ip unnumbered Loopback0
tunnel destination RID-of-tail
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Summary Configuration (2/2)
! Configure in IGP
mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0
mpls traffic-eng area ospf-area (OSPF)
mpls traffic-eng level-x (ISIS)
metric-style wide
!
! On Physical interface
interface POS0/0
ip rsvp bandwidth Kbps
RST-2603
You Want SHOW Commands?

show mpls traffic-eng link-management admission-cont
show mpls traffic-eng link-management advertisements
show mpls traffic-eng link-management bandwidth-alloc
show mpls traffic-eng link-management igp-neighbors
show mpls traffic-eng link-management interfaces
show mpls traffic-eng link-management summary
show mpls traffic-eng forwarding-adjacency
show mpls traffic tunnel backup
show mpls traffic-eng fast-reroute database
show mpls traffic-eng tunnels
show mpls traffic-eng tunnels summary
show mpls traffic-eng what’s-for-dinner
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
PROTECTION
RST-2603
Protection
• Mechanism to minimize packet loss during a failure

• Pre-provisioned protection tunnels that carry traffic when a
protected link or node goes down
• MPLS TE protection also known as FAST REROUTE (FRR)
• FRR protects against LINK FAILURE
For example, Fibre cut, Carrier Loss, ADM failure
• FRR protects against NODE FAILURE

For example, power failure, hardware crash, maintenance
• Real Soon Now: protection against CONDUIT FAILURE

(SRLG)
Conduit may carry multiple fibres, don’t want to protect C1:F1 with C1:F2
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Categories of Fast Reroute Protection
• Local protection
Link protection
Node protection
Protect a piece of the network (node or link)
1:N scalability
Fast failure recovery due to local repair
• Path protection
Real soon now
Protects individual tunnels
1:1 scalability
RST-2603
Link Protection
• TE Tunnel A Î B Î D Î E
Router A Router B Router D Router E
Router C
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Link Protection
• B has a pre-provisioned backup tunnel to the other end of the

protected link (Router D) B Î C Î D
• FRR relies on the fact that D is using global
label space
Protected Link
Fast ReRoute
Backup Tunnel
Router C
RST-2603
Link Protection
• When B Î D link fails, A Î E tunnel is encapsulated

in B Î D tunnel
• Backup tunnel is used until A can re-compute tunnel path as
A Î B Î C Î D Î E (~5-15 seconds or so)
A B D E
Original
Tunnel Router C
RST-2603 Fast ReRoute

9866_05_2004_c2 © 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Backup Tunnel 52

9866_05_2004_c2
Link Protection Example
Primary Path Pop

R8 R9
R2 14 R3 Tail End for
primary path
37
Protected Link
Fast Reroute path Pop
R1 17 R5
Head End for R6 R7

primary path 22
Primary path: R1 Î R2 Î R3 Î R9
Fast Reroute path: R2 Î R6 Î R7 Î R3
RST-2603
Normal TE Operation
Pop 14
R8 Swap 37 with 14
R9
R3
R2 R3
Push 37
R1 R5
R6 R7
IP 14
37
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Fast Reroute Link Failure
Pop 14
R8 Swap 37 with 14
R9
R2 R3
Push 37
R1 R5
Push 17 Pop 22
R6 R7
Swap 17 with 22
IP 14 17
37 22
RST-2603
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Node Protection
• What if Router D failed?

• Link protection would not help as the backup tunnel
terminates on Router D (which is the NHop of the
protected link)
Protected Link
NHop
Fast ReRoute
Backup Tunnel
Router C
RST-2603
Node Protection
• SOLUTION: NODE PROTECTION (If network topology allows)

• Protect tunnel to the next hop PAST the protected link
(NNhop)
Protected Node
NNHop
Router C Fast ReRoute

Backup Tunnel
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Node Protection
• Node protection still has the same convergence

properties as link protection
• Deciding where to place your backup tunnels is a
much harder problem to solve on a large-scale
• For small-scale protection, link may be better
• Auto-tunnel and auto-mesh can help with this
• Configuration is identical to link protection,
except where you terminate the backup tunnel
(NNHop vs. NHop)
RST-2603
Link and Node Protection Times
• Link and Node protection are very similar

• Protection times are commonly linear to number of
protected items
• One nationwide provider gets ~35ms of loss
• New code on GSR E3 linecards gets a prefix-
independent 2ms-4ms loss
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Path Protection
• Path protection: Multiple tunnels from TE head to

tail, across diverse paths
Router A Router B Router D Router E Router F
RST-2603
Path Protection
• Least scalable, most resource-consuming, slowest

convergence of all 3 protection schemes
• With no protection, worst-case packet loss is 3x
path delay
• With path protection, worst-case packet loss is 1x
path delay
• With link or node protection, packet loss is easily
engineered to be subsecond (<100ms, <50ms, 4ms,
all possible)
• Path protection is useful in a few places:
Geographically constrained regions (e.g. Japan)
Only a few protected LSPs (one-off per-circuit AToM protection)
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
QoS/MPLS/MPLS-TE
RST-2603
No Need for TE or DiffServ
Control
Plane
No contention anywhere, ever
So don’t do any work!
Nothing
Forwarding
RST-2603
Plane

9866_05_2004_c2
Need DiffServ, Don’t Need TE
Control
Plane
Temporary congestion can be
handled by differentiating
between packets at
forwarding time
“Managed Unfairness”
DiffServ
Forwarding
RST-2603
Plane
More Efficient Use of IP Bandwidth,

but No Contention
Control
Plane
Spread traffic around the
network with more flexibility
than just IP metrics
TE
Forwarding
RST-2603
Plane

9866_05_2004_c2
Bandwidth Optimization and Congestion
Management in Parallel
Control Spread traffic around with

Plane more flexibility than the IGP
offers
Managed unfairness during

temporary congestion
TE + DiffServ
Forwarding
RST-2603
Plane
Reserve Per-Class Bandwidth, Sort Of
Control
Plane
DS-TE
Control-
Control-plane reservation for
multiple forwarding classes.
Still need DiffServ PHBs to

provide actual service
differentiation.
Forwarding
RST-2603
Plane

9866_05_2004_c2
Minimize Packet Loss at Any Point
Control Fast ReRoute can be combined with

Plane any of these to minimize packet loss
FRR
Link or Node
during link failure.
DS-TE Link or node protection (1hop is a

FRR type of link protection)
FRR
Link or Node Link or Node Bandwidth or connectivity protection.
TE TE + DiffServ
FRR FRR
1hop 1hop
Nothing DiffServ
Forwarding
RST-2603
Plane
DiffServ-Aware TE
• Regular TE allows for one reservable bandwidth

amount per link
• Regular (FIFO) queuing allows for one queue
per link
• DiffServ queuing (e.g. LLQ) allows for more than
one queue per link
• DS-TE allows for more than one reservable
bandwidth amount per link
• Basic idea: connect PHB class bandwidth to DS-TE
bandwidth sub-pool
• Still a control-plane reservation only
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
DESIGN AND SCALABILITY
RST-2603
Design Approach and Scalability

Two Methods to Deploy MPLS-TE
• Tactical
As needed to clear up congestion
You only have tunnels when there is a problem (and you
must remember to remove them
• Strategic
Mesh of TE tunnels between a level of routers
Typically P to P but can be PE to PE in smaller networks
N(N-1) LSPs (one in each direction)
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Design Spectrum
Tactical Strategic TE
IGP
TE Online Offline
Control
Less Greater
Complexity
RST-2603
Tactical: Large ISP Case Study
700Mpbs of data
100Mbps dropped!
Router A
Router B Router C
• All links are OC12 (622Mbps)

• A has consistent ±700Mbps to
send to C
• ~100Mbps constantly dropped!
Router D Router E
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Multiple TE and Unequal Cost
Load Balancing
175Mbps on this 525Mbps on this

tunnel tunnel
Router A
Router B Router C
• Tunnels with bandwidth in 3:1
(12:4) ratio
• 25% of traffic sent the long way
• 75% sent the short way
• No out-of-order packet issues—
CEF’s normal per-flow hashing
is used!
Router D Router E
RST-2603
Tactical
• As needed—Easy, quick, but hard to track over time

• Easy to forget why a tunnel is in place
• Inter-node BW requirements may change, tunnels
may be working around issues that no longer exist
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Strategic
• Full mesh of TE tunnels between routers

• Initially deploy tunnels with 0 bandwidth
• Monitor tunnel interface statistics
~Bandwidth used between router pairs
TE tunnels have interface MIBs
Make sure that Σtunnel <= Σnetwork BW
• As tunnel bandwidth is changed, tunnels will find

the best path across the network
RST-2603
Strategic: Physical Topology
Router A
Router B Router C
Router D Router E
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Strategic: Logical Topology
• Total of 20 tunnels in this network

• Each link is actually 2 unidirectional tunnels
Router A
Router B Router C
Router D Router E
RST-2603
Strategic
• N routers, N*(N-1) tunnels

• Routing protocols do not run over a TE tunnel
Unlike an ATM/FR full mesh!
• Tunnels are unidirectional

This is a good thing
Can have different bandwidth reservations in two different
directions
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Scalability
Number Number Number of
Code of Headend of Mid-Points Tails
Tunnels
12.0ST 600 10,000 5,000
• In late 2000/early 2001, we said, “how many tunnels come up

in 5 minutes?”
• Answer as above
• With latest code, above converges in 2-3 minutes
• Haven’t need to formalize larger-number testing
Largest customer we know of has a network about ¼ this size
• Bottom line: MPLS-TE scalability is not the gating factor in
scaling your network
RST-2603
Protection Scalability
• N is number of nodes in the TE cloud (10-150)

• D is backbone degree of connectivity
(4-6 avg, max 12-16)
• Primary full mesh: O(N^2)
• Link protection: additional O(N*D) tunnels
• Node protection: additional O(N*D^2) tunnels
• Path protection: additional O(N^2) tunnels
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Scalability
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software
/ios120/120newft/120limit/120st/120st14/scalable.htm
• Search CCO for “Scalability Enhancements for

MPLS Traffic Engineering”
RST-2603
MPLS VPN, MULTICAST, AND TE
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
TE and MPLS VPNs
• MPLS VPNs
VPN label is carried across network by IGP label
• MPLS TE label can serve as the IGP label

TE tunnels must connect PE-PE…
• Otherwise enable LDP/TDP on tunnel interface

Using Targeted LDP session
RST-2603
MPLS VPN over PE-PE TE Tunnel

PE-R8 PE-R9
P-R2 P-R3
PE-R1 PE-R5
P-R6 P-R7
VPN
VPN
TE Label
VPN Label Transmit Using Normal

Label Swapping and Forwarding
IP Packet
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
MPLS VPN over P-P TE Tunnel
PE-R8 PE-R9
P-R2 P-R3
LDP Targeted LDP

Session
PE-R1 PE-R5
P-R6 P-R7
VPN
VPN
TE Label
IGP Label Normal Label Swapping
VPN Label and Forwarding
IP Packet
RST-2603
TE and Multicast
• Multicast requires RPF

• Multicast packets should arrive on interface that is
shortest path to source
• Autoroute causes IGP to point to TE tunnel
• As packets don’t exit tunnel interface,
multicast breaks!
• Cisco IOS has a command to fix it
(under IGP config)…
mpls traffic-eng multicast intact
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
SUMMARY
RST-2603
MPLS TE
• Helps optimize network utilisation (strategic)

• Assists in handling unexpected congestion
(tactical)
• Provides fast reroute for link and node failures
• TE is only part of a method of guaranteeing
bandwidth
It is a control plane mechanism only
Must be used with traditional QoS mechanisms
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2
Complete Your Online Session Evaluation!
WHAT: Complete an online session evaluation

and your name will be entered into a
daily drawing
WHY: Win fabulous prizes! Give us your feedback!
WHERE: Go to the Internet stations located
throughout the Convention Center
HOW: Winners will be posted on the onsite
Networkers Website; four winners per day
RST-2603
RST-2603

9866_05_2004_c2

Traffic ENg. MPLS TE Resume

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic ENg. MPLS TE Resume

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic ENg. MPLS TE Resume

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPLOYING MPLS TRAFFIC

• You understand basic IP routing

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• Traffic Engineering Overview

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

Network vs. Traffic Engineering

• Traffic patterns are impossible to accurately predict

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• Increase efficiency of bandwidth resources

The “Fish” Problem (Shortest Path)

• IP uses shortest path destination-based routing

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• Constrained-Based Shortest Path First (CSPF)

HEADEND MIDPOINT TAILEND

Upstream Tunnel Direction Downstream

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• Need to flood TE information (Resource Attributes)

• IGP extensions flood this information

• Basic IGP: {self, neighbors, cost to neighbors}

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• Once available bandwidth information and attributes are

• Once the path is calculated, it must be signaled

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• On receipt of PATH message

• On receipt of a RESV message

• OSPF/ISIS updates are triggered

Path Setup Example

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

Static, autoroute, and forwarding adjacency get you

• Used to include TE LSP in SPF calculations

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

Autoroute Topology (OSPF and ISIS)

From R1 router perspective:

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• Autoroute does not advertise the LSP into the IGP

• Useful as a drop-in replacement for ATM/FR

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

Load Balancing Across FA

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

• IP routing has equal-cost load balancing, but not

*EIGRP Has ‘Variance’, but That’s Not as Flexible

Unequal Cost: Example 1

Router A 40MB Router E

gsr1#show ip route 192.168.1.8

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

Router A 40MB Router E

gsr1#sh ip cef 192.168.1.8 internal

Note That the Load Distribution

Unequal Cost: Example 2

gsr1#sh ip rou 192.168.1.8

Q: How Does 100:10:1 Fit Into a 16-Deep Hash?

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

gsr1#sh ip cef 192.168.1.8 internal

Hash OK Interface Address Packets Tags imposed

• Steady-state information load is low

© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA.

Prerequisite Configuration (Global)