The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Encapsulating MPLS in IP or GRE
This is the usage I find the most attractive. Actually, we had a customer who wanted to do carrier's carrier to create their own VPNs for their tenants. The approach taken was to use GRE tunnels. The customer did not like having to create numerous tunnel interfaces. Mark Duffy wrote: >Hi Art, are you suggesting that there is something about the MPLS VPN case >in particular that favors mpls-in-gre over mpls-in-ip? If so would you >explain that? > >Thanks, Mark > > >At 01:32 PM 8/15/02 -0700, Art King wrote: > > >>Connecting MPLS VPN PE's over non-MPLS core in a Carrier is a >>good example case for GRE usage. >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Eric Rosen" <erosen@cisco.com> >>To: "Shahram Davari" <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com> >>Cc: <mpls@UU.NET>; "Loa Andersson" <loa.andersson@utfors.se>; "George >>Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com> >>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:27 AM >>Subject: Re: Encapsulating MPLS in IP or GRE >> >> >> >> >>>In some cases you might already have a GRE tunnel through which you >>> >>> >>are >> >> >>>supporting a routing adjacency. It should be possible to send MPLS >>> >>> >>packets, >> >> >>>as well as IP packets, through such tunnels, and this requires >>> >>> >>an >> >> >>>MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation. >>> >>>There are also other cases in which GRE tunnels (as opposed to IP >>> >>> >>tunnels) >> >> >>>are commonly used, and you should be able to send MPLS packets >>> >>> >>through >> >> >>>them. >>> >>> >>>
|
|