The MPLS WG Archive

["Metz, Eduard" <Eduard.Metz@KPNQwest.com>]

As far as I know RFC2547(bis) allow RIP, OSPF, BGP, and static to be used as
a CE-to-PE routing protocol (there is no requirement). So, in your case "no
routing protocol" would mean static (not really a protocol, but still..).

The way I read RFC2547bis, section 9, LSP are built like this: PEs build
"VRF-to-VRF" LSP (inner label), and PE-to-PE" LSPs (outer label).
Furthermore they advertise labels for routes they know to the CEs that are
connected. In return, CE may advertise label for routes on their side. This
results in "CE-to-PE" LSPs. So a "CE-to-CE" LSP is the concatenation of
"CE-to-PE", "VRF-to-VRF", and "PE-to-CE" LSPs. Or something like this:
- CE1: push(L10)
- PE1: swap(L10->L11), push(L20)
- P1: swap(L20->L21)
- PE2: pop(L21), swap(L11->L12)
- CE2: pop(L12)

Alternatively pop/push operations on the CEs could be label swaps.

This seems like your scenario "3 b", why would this not work? When there is
a (VRF-to-VRF) label for each route it will or not (or one per CE when only
the CE run MPLS, and the PE is the penultimate hop)? 

cheers,
	Eduard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]
> Sent: 14 May 2001 17:39
> To: 'jim guichard'; Sasha Vainshtein
> Cc: Metz, Eduard; 'Shahram Davari'; 'mpls@uu.net'; Alik Shimelmits;
> Elena Vinkler
> Subject: RE: BGP/MPLS VPN PE LSR
> 
> 
> Jim,
> Thank you for a prompt response. However, it leaves several 
> point unclear.
> 1. Neither RFC 2547 nor rfc2547bis does not specify which 
> routing protocols
> run between
>    CE and PE if any at all. In the basic model, CE does not 
> require any 
>    specific route at all - a default route via its PE is 
> sufficient. In its
> turn,
>    PE may learn routes to destinations behind its adjacent CE 
> via static
> configuration.
>    So what happens if  there is no routing protocol between CE and its
> adjacent PE?
> 2. AFAIK in the 2547 model:
>    a) PE somehow learns routes to destinations behind its 
> adjacent CEs and
> installs
>        them in the VRF instance associated with the given VPN
>    b) iBGP distributes addresses of PEs as BGP next hops for the
>        VPN destinations behind their adjacent CEs together 
> with _internal_
> labels which
>        are associated with the VRF instances within these PEs
>    c) IGP (OSPF or ISIS)  within the MPLS backbone provides for IP
> connectivity between PEs
>    d) LDP provides for MPLS connectivity between PEs
>    e) PEs use labels associated with LSPs to their peers as _external_
> labels in the
>        two-level label stack.
>    This means that  internal labels refer to VRF 
> instance-to-VRF instance
> LSPs while
>    external labels refer to PE-to-PE LSPs. 
> 3. Now comes the key question: to which LSP should belong a label in a
>    packet sent by the CE to its adjacent PE?
>    I see the following use cases:
>    a) They belong to CE-to-CE LSPs which are tunneled in the
>        VRF instance-to-VRF instance ones,
>        i.e. they are never visible in the MPLS VPN backbone 
> including PEs.
>       This is the scenario I had in mind. It also may be 
> related to the
> flavor which you have
>       called hierarchical VPN. The probelm is that PE has to 
> recognize these
> labels in order to
>       process them in any way. I do not see how this is possible.
>    b) They belong to CE-to-CE tunnels which are just 
> extensions of the 
>        VRF instance-to-VRF instance ones. This will only
>       work if there is just one customer site per PE per VPN. 
>   c) They belong to (upstream CE)-to-(VRF instance in the 
> downstream PE)
> LSPs.
>       IMHO this corresponds to the process you have described 
> in your answer
> and
>       also to the "VPN site running MPLS" flavor. The problem 
> with this
> scenario is
>       that the provider's network topology becomes partially 
> visible to the
> CE routers
>       ( they have to know which PE acts as the BGP next hop 
> for the specific
> destination
>      in their VPN). AFAIK this is considered as undesirable 
> in the common
> VPN framework. 
>  
> 
> With best regards,
>                                    Sasha Vainshtein
> email:     sasha@axerra.com 
> tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
>            +972-8-9254948 (res.)
>            +972-58-674833 (cell.)
>  
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jim guichard [mailto:jguichar@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 10:35 AM
> > To: Sasha Vainshtein
> > Cc: Metz, Eduard; 'Shahram Davari'; 'mpls@uu.net'; Alik 
> > Shimelmits; Elena Vinkler
> > Subject: RE: BGP/MPLS VPN PE LSR
> > 
> > 
> > Sasha,
> > 
> > At 11:03 14/05/2001 +0200, Sasha Vainshtein wrote:
> > >Regarding the Carriers Carrier model:
> > >My assumption is that in this model the label on the packet
> > >sent by the upstream CE router to its appropriate  PE has 
> > been assigned
> > >(to some FEC)
> > 
> > your assumption is not correct. The label that the CE will use is 
> > distributed by its upstream PE router. The external routes of 
> > the site are 
> > distributed to other sites using iBGP. The BGP next-hops for 
> > these prefixes 
> > are exchanged with the MPLS VPN backbone using standard 
> > routing protocols 
> > but also LDP label distribution. The BGP next-hops are placed 
> > into the PE 
> > routers VRF and then advertised across the backbone as VPNv4 
> > prefixes. Once 
> > imported into the receiving PE routers VRF, they are 
> advertised using 
> > standard routing protocols to the CE but also with LDP label 
> > distribution. 
> > All of this provides an end-to-end LSP between ASBRs in 
> > different sites, 
> > and provides the ability to off load large amounts of prefix 
> > information 
> > from the MPLS VPN backbone .. Jim
> > 
> > >  by the peer downstream CE router at the
> > >other side of the CE<-->CE tunnel and then distributed to
> > >the upstream CE (e.g., via a direct LDP session between the 
> > two CE routers)
> > >  without any involvement of the PE routers (save from that that
> > >they provide an IP VPN connectivity between CEs
> > >so that the latter can run LDP sessions between them).
> > >This means that PE cannot do anything with such a label per se!
> > >One way to overcome siuch a situation would be for the two 
> > CEs to run either
> > >
> > >MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE between them as described in
> > ><draft-worster-mpls-in-ip-04.txt>.
> > >
> > >With best regards,
> > >                                    Sasha Vainshtein
> > >email:     sasha@axerra.com
> > >tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
> > >            +972-8-9254948 (res.)
> > >            +972-58-674833 (cell.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: jim guichard [mailto:jguichar@cisco.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:41 AM
> > > > To: Metz, Eduard
> > > > Cc: 'Shahram Davari'; 'mpls@uu.net'
> > > > Subject: RE: BGP/MPLS VPN PE LSR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The case where a PE will receive a labelled packet is
> > > > referred to as the
> > > > Carriers Carrier architecture and it has several flavours. In
> > > > the case
> > > > where the VPN site is running MPLS, then you will see a two
> > > > level label
> > > > stack across the carrier backbone. A three level label stack
> > > > will be seen
> > > > when the VPN site is running MPLS VPN and this is 
> referred to as a
> > > > hierarchical VPN. Jim
> > > >
> > > > At 10:43 10/05/2001 +0200, Metz, Eduard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I assume you are referring to the 'carriers-carrier' model.
> > > > This section in
> > > > >the draft is pretty vague. However, are you sure 2 labels
> > > > will be added?
> > > > >Could the PE not also use the customer label as the inner
> > > > label (and thus
> > > > >swap it)?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> > > > > > Sent: 09 May 2001 21:16
> > > > > > To: 'mpls@uu.net'
> > > > > > Subject: BGP/MPLS VPN PE LSR
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In an BGP/MPLS VPN scenario if a CE router sends an MPLS
> > > > > > packet rather than an IP packet to a PE router, the 
> PE router
> > > > > > should still push 2 labels. My question is, should the PE
> > > > > > router swap the customer's label too or leave it unchanged?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yours,
> > > > > > -Shahram
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jim Guichard CCIE #2069
> > > > Technical Leader EMEA
> > > >
> > > > +44 208 756 8806
> > > > Mobile: +44 7802 809763
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jim Guichard CCIE #2069
> > Technical Leader EMEA
> > 
> > +44 208 756 8806
> > Mobile: +44 7802 809763
> > 
>