Subject: Static LSP Configuration

From: gary tam <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:09:43 -0400 (EDT)

hi there, 

I want to check whether Cisco and others are
supporting static LSP in their core router. If anyone
has experience in configuring Static LSP with Cisco,
Juniper, and Riverstone core routers, please give me a
hand or point me to proper links. 

Thanks,
Takumu

______________________________________________________________________ 
Games, Movies, Music & Sports! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca

---

From: Ajay Simha <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 13:23:25 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 3 May 2002, gary tam wrote:
Wrong alias for these type of questions.

I will answer you offline :)
-ajay
gt>hi there,
gt>
gt>I want to check whether Cisco and others are
gt>supporting static LSP in their core router. If anyone
gt>has experience in configuring Static LSP with Cisco,
gt>Juniper, and Riverstone core routers, please give me a
gt>hand or point me to proper links.
gt>
gt>Thanks,
gt>Takumu
gt>
gt>
gt>______________________________________________________________________
gt>Games, Movies, Music & Sports! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca
gt>

--

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 17:48:42 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, gary tam writes
> hand or point me to proper links. 

Well ... yes and no.  We stuck capability in to support explicit-path
but since the departure of some wanna-be ISPs and change of mind of
other wanna-be ISPs there seems to be no need for the feature as far
as I can tell.  No one that ever had a real network running has asked
for this feature afaik.  Two or three years ago we had wierd requests
like inter-AS MPLS with explicit MPLS paths but those went away.

We never had anything approaching a credible customer request for the
really static MPLS where the user sets insegments and outsegments via
CLI or SNMP.  I think that was an imaginary need concocted by SNMP
fanatics.  Anyone have evidence to the contrary (an ISP or a router
vendor with customers doing this in a production network)?

Maybe there is some use of this in edge boxes.  Static IP routes are
common on customer premise LANs and in use at some ISP customer
aggrigation routers so maybe static MPLS is used for some singly
connected edge gadgets.  That I don't know about.  We do core, gateway
and large aggregation, and not edge or CPE.

Curtis

---

From: Ajay Simha <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:53:23 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

CV>
CV>In message <[email-masked]>, gary tam writes
CV>:
CV>> hi there,
CV>>
CV>> I want to check whether Cisco and others are
CV>> supporting static LSP in their core router. If anyone
CV>> has experience in configuring Static LSP with Cisco,
CV>> Juniper, and Riverstone core routers, please give me a
CV>> hand or point me to proper links.
CV>>
CV>> Thanks,
CV>> Takumu
CV>
CV>
CV>Well ... yes and no.  We stuck capability in to support explicit-path

I don't know who the we in "We skuck.." is :)

CV>but since the departure of some wanna-be ISPs and change of mind of
CV>other wanna-be ISPs there seems to be no need for the feature as far
CV>as I can tell.  No one that ever had a real network running has asked
CV>for this feature afaik.  Two or three years ago we had wierd requests
CV>like inter-AS MPLS with explicit MPLS paths but those went away.
CV>
CV>We never had anything approaching a credible customer request for the
CV>really static MPLS where the user sets insegments and outsegments via
CV>CLI or SNMP.  I think that was an imaginary need concocted by SNMP
CV>fanatics.  Anyone have evidence to the contrary (an ISP or a router
CV>vendor with customers doing this in a production network)?

SNMP merely reflects what is out there or what may be out there via CLI. You
cannot add new function with SNMP :)

So the real question should be (relevant to this mailing list) - are static
labels based LSPs an actual requirement - if so what percentage of the SPs
actually want it and why.

CV>
CV>Maybe there is some use of this in edge boxes.  Static IP routes are
CV>common on customer premise LANs and in use at some ISP customer
CV>aggrigation routers so maybe static MPLS is used for some singly
CV>connected edge gadgets.  That I don't know about.  We do core, gateway
CV>and large aggregation, and not edge or CPE.
CV>
CV>Curtis
CV>

--

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 13:57:33 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Ajay 
> I don't know who the we in "We skuck.." is :)
                                  ^ stuck

That's excusable (the spelling error is too).  :)

Since you didn't recognize the name -- former ANS person involved in
T3-NSFNET work - former UUNET - now at Avici.  fictitious.org is the
DNS name of my home.  Alta Vista sez - "We found 3,928 results" - its
mostly junk, a few papers, presentation, RFCs.  :)

> cannot add new function with SNMP :)

Thanks for stating the obvious.

> actually want it and why.

Thanks for restating my question.  Why don't you try answering it
instead.

Now its my turn to state the obvious and restate the question.  The
question was "Anyone have evidence to the contrary (an ISP or a router
vendor with customers doing this in a production network)?".  "This"
in the former sentence is "the really static MPLS where the user sets
insegments and outsegments via CLI or SNMP".  I (someone at Avici
involved in MPLS) have never personally seen such as request.  Do you
(someone at Cisco) know of an ISP doing this in a production network?

If an ISP wants to speak up in favor of static LSPs (ones where the
user sets insegments and outsegments via CLI or SNMP), then by all
means do so.  If not, at the very least, some SNMP read/write
variables can be specified as read only.  Not that it matters since
most vendors support these as read-only and simply document it.

Personally, I think these static LSPs are not useful (or their ATM
equivalent, PVC - not SPVC), but I welcome comments to the contrary.

Curtis

---

From: Ajay Simha <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 15:14:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 4 May 2002, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

CV>
CV>In message <[email-masked]>, Ajay
CV>Simha writes:
CV>> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
CV>>
CV>> CV>Well ... yes and no.  We stuck capability in to support explicit-path
CV>>
CV>> I don't know who the we in "We skuck.." is :)
CV>                                  ^ stuck

CV>
CV>That's excusable (the spelling error is too).  :)

Thanks for fixing it :)

CV>
CV>Since you didn't recognize the name -- former ANS person involved in
CV>T3-NSFNET work - former UUNET - now at Avici.  fictitious.org is the
CV>DNS name of my home.  Alta Vista sez - "We found 3,928 results" - its
CV>mostly junk, a few papers, presentation, RFCs.  :)

Sorry for not recognizing the name - you are THE Curtis... Thousand appologies
:)

Now for the real issue...

CV>
CV>> CV>but since the departure of some wanna-be ISPs and change of mind of
CV>> CV>other wanna-be ISPs there seems to be no need for the feature as far
CV>> CV>as I can tell.  No one that ever had a real network running has asked
CV>> CV>for this feature afaik.  Two or three years ago we had wierd requests
CV>> CV>like inter-AS MPLS with explicit MPLS paths but those went away.
CV>> CV>
CV>> CV>We never had anything approaching a credible customer request for the
CV>> CV>really static MPLS where the user sets insegments and outsegments via
CV>> CV>CLI or SNMP.  I think that was an imaginary need concocted by SNMP
CV>> CV>fanatics.  Anyone have evidence to the contrary (an ISP or a router
CV>> CV>vendor with customers doing this in a production network)?
CV>>
CV>> SNMP merely reflects what is out there or what may be out there via CLI. You
CV>> cannot add new function with SNMP :)
CV>
CV>Thanks for stating the obvious.
CV>
CV>> So the real question should be (relevant to this mailing list) - are static
CV>> labels based LSPs an actual requirement - if so what percentage of the SPs
CV>> actually want it and why.
CV>
CV>Thanks for restating my question.  Why don't you try answering it
CV>instead.

I think static labels based LSPs will become a nightmare to manage in a
production size network. I have had a few customers ask for it but without a
really good reason.

The only time it may actually be useful (IMHO) is an some InterAS VPNs where
the two providers don't want to actually exchange label (whether one considers
it safe or not).

CV>
CV>Now its my turn to state the obvious and restate the question.  The
CV>question was "Anyone have evidence to the contrary (an ISP or a router
CV>vendor with customers doing this in a production network)?".  "This"
CV>in the former sentence is "the really static MPLS where the user sets
CV>insegments and outsegments via CLI or SNMP".  I (someone at Avici
CV>involved in MPLS) have never personally seen such as request.  Do you
CV>(someone at Cisco) know of an ISP doing this in a production network?
CV>
CV>If an ISP wants to speak up in favor of static LSPs (ones where the
CV>user sets insegments and outsegments via CLI or SNMP), then by all
CV>means do so.  If not, at the very least, some SNMP read/write
CV>variables can be specified as read only.  Not that it matters since
CV>most vendors support these as read-only and simply document it.
CV>
CV>Personally, I think these static LSPs are not useful (or their ATM
CV>equivalent, PVC - not SPVC), but I welcome comments to the contrary.

I agree.

-ajay
CV>
CV>Curtis
CV>

--

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 16:27:36 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Ajay
> the two providers don't want to actually exchange label (whether one consider

In the last case you mentioned here, there are clearly better ways to
do this.  I've also seen this same request and that was among the
"wierd requests 2-3 years ago" that I think have gone away.  I think
that particular request is only slightly more alive than features
needed for Enron's bandwidth brokering.

Regardless of whether this is a credible customer request, there is a
better way, LDP just works across AS and for TE use simple loose hops
from the ingress.  It will require some authentication at the inter-AS
borders if this is interprovider and it would help to implement the AS
hop type in RSVP.  If we are talking about inter-AS within a provider,
there is already someone doing that running MPLS/TE in each AS and
LDP/VPN across AS inside TE and I'm confident they wouldn't consider
static LSPs even for a moment, nor are they interested in doing a
single TE hop through both AS.  Plus each AS has IGP areas.

btw- retorical question - with static LSPs, what happens when a link
goes down?

Curtis