VPLS.US

Of course it's in french. But if you translate it...

https://noc.sara.nl/nrg/dot1ag-utils/

bash-4.2# ethping -ieth1 -l7 -c5 00:00:5e:00:01:14
Sending CFM LBM to 00:00:5e:00:01:14
Request timeout for 1878795604
Request timeout for 1878795605
Request timeout for 1878795606
Request timeout for 1878795607
bash-4.2#

and a try with the trace


bash-4.2# ethtrace -i eth1 -l 7 00:09:3d:13:f2:a0
Sending CFM LTM probe to 00:09:3d:13:f2:a0
ttl 1: LTM with id 1925342007
no replies for LTM 1925342007
ttl 2: LTM with id 1925342008
no replies for LTM 1925342008
ttl 3: LTM with id 1925342009
no replies for LTM 1925342009
ttl 4: LTM with id 1925342010
no replies for LTM 1925342010
ttl 5: LTM with id 1925342011
no replies for LTM 1925342011
ttl 6: LTM with id 1925342012
no replies for LTM 1925342012
ttl 7: LTM with id 1925342013
no replies for LTM 1925342013
ttl 8: LTM with id 1925342014
no replies for LTM 1925342014
ttl 9: LTM with id 1925342015
no replies for LTM 1925342015


]]>

780
2012-09-30 11:07:58
2012-09-30 18:07:58
open
open
odds-ends
publish
0
0
post

0



_wordbooker_thumb



_wordbooker_extract
http://www.bortzmeyer.org/ethernet-oam.html

Of course it's in french. But if you translate it...

https://noc.sara.nl/nrg/dot1ag-utils/

bash-4.2# ethping -ieth1 -l7 -c5 00:00:5e:00:01:14
Sending CFM LBM to 00:00: ...]]>


_wordbooker_options



_edit_last



_oembed_3b89bc87179a7f8c07ed3748776125d7



_oembed_6f64d583c5ce7c0fbb63f94471f0b1d7

#!/bin/bash
echo "setmac to $1"
numbers=(`echo $1 | tr ':' ' '`)
echo ${numbers[0]}

KEY=669955aa
numbers[0]=c0
numbers[1]=ff
numbers[2]=ee
numbers[3]=c0
numbers[4]=ff
numbers[5]=ee

ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x7e value 0x${numbers[0]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x7f value 0x${numbers[1]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x80 value 0x${numbers[2]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x81 value 0x${numbers[3]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x82 value 0x${numbers[4]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x83 value 0x${numbers[5]}

echo ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x83 value 0x${number[5]}

eth1: flags=4163  mtu 1500
        inet 10.45.21.205  netmask 255.255.254.0  broadcast 10.45.21.255
        inet6 fe80::c2ff:eeff:fec0:ffee  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20

        ether c0:ff:ee:c0:ff:ee  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 43102  bytes 8804897 (8.3 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 15  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 7729  bytes 1102903 (1.0 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
        device interrupt 16  

Extending Ethernet Beyond Best Effort

Hierarchy 1: Cesium Clock. I have a buddy over in the Netherlands that has a cesium Clock in his apartment :)

Hierarchy 2: At the next level of hierarchy is Synchronization Supply Unit (SSU) or Building Integrated Timing Supply (BITS)

Hierarchy 3: SDH / ATM hardware clocks.

Requirements for SyncE are outlined in the timing characteristics of synchronous Ethernet equipment clock (ITU G.8262/Y1362) specifications. These specifications are based on ITU-T G.813 specification for SDH clocks.
]]>

776
2012-07-11 14:47:58
2012-07-11 21:47:58
open
open
sync-e-synchronous-ethernet
publish
0
0
post

0


wordbooker_options



_edit_last



_wordbooker_thumb



_wordbooker_extract

Hierarchy 1: Cesium Clock. I have a buddy over in the Netherlands that has a cesium Clock in his apartment :)

Hierarchy 2: At the next level of hierarchy is Synchronization Supply Unit (SSU) or Building Inte ...]]>

PON: basically a passive splitter 4 way that’s again split with an 8way. Giving you up to 32 ONTs. It’s shared. Kind of like the old 10base2. or 10base5 or arcnet :) Except it’s fiber rather than copper

Active Ethernet :) well, you’ve been reading about it here for a couple years now. just a series of switches that bring it back to a router at some point. Over fiber it means you are basically limited by the optics you are using to the CE (The Home in the FTTH, or Premises on FTTP).

We ultimately rolled out some PON using Ciena down in Latin America. I didn’t have much to do with that installation, and am certainly glad it wasn’t me who had to make the call for using PON.

As near as I can tell, there doesn’t seem to be a serious amount of saved resources by going with PON. You still have to dig trenches… You still have to get entrance facility. As near as I can tell, all you save is power at the break out boxes…. Where PON is passive and doesn’t require power. The Ethernet requires electricity to power it’s repeaters.

Err not repeaters that was Hubs. :) 3 active repeaters between the user and the CE, but that’s copper. Oh, and you also save a bit of fiber, but having been in a company that laid a lot of fiber, I can tell you that the major expense of laying fiber isn’t the cost of the fiber. It’s the cost of getting the fiber into the ground that costs the most money. Putting more in the ground just gives you future expansion capabilities.

]]>

using vpls for e-line

This is a pretty interesting question.

On the one hand you could use RFC 4447, using LDP to setup Pseudowire connections between two PEs. That’s pretty simple, straight forward, and with minimal amount of resources that get carved up by the PEs terminating the VC Virtual Connection.

Or, on the other hand, you could use 4762 to establish the point to points between the two CEs. Well there are trade offs for the least use of resources.

With RFC 4447:

• You have to do some sort of migration if they want to go from ELINE to ELAN.
• You don’t have any sort of MAC learning.
• All BPDUs are automatically carried across the link.
• It has the traditional carrier feel of a circuit being tied up.
• No routing table is configured on the resources.
• The turnup / build of a 4447 is MUCH simpler, in most cases the configuration is a single line of code.
• The training / testing / operational aspects are MUCH simpler.
  

With RFC 4762:

• No configuration Migration between ELine to ELan
• Typically most Router Vendors will allow much deeper packet inspection of L2VPN instead of a Pseudowire. For instance I know of one larger router vendor that will allow classification via DSCP/TOS/Prec using 4762 but not with 4447
• MAC learning can be turned off to make the behavior similar
• Configuration is MUCH more complex
• Traversing a Bridge-domain allows an additional touch point for troubleshooting exercises with the customer.
• Adding additional sites is easy
• Passing L2 protocols can require additional Configuration
  

There are trade offs for every scenario. I guess my main concern with using 4762 for building point to point ethernet is the situation where you are building EVPL or a Etree using point to points. Your trunk will have potentially hundreds of end points and building all of those VPLS 4762 tables seems to be a very large chore.

Then the other thing that has to be considered is the impact of the decision as it relates to your metro area. Turning off MAC learning at your PE doesn’t do anything to limit the amount of addresses that you could or will be seeing in your metro rings. Assuming of course that you don’t extend your pseudowires into the metro. That makes the decision of using VPLS in the metro even much more complex.

Personally, I’ve waffled between the different design theories, and have been swayed because of the features and capabilities of the vendors. However the end result to the customer is identical.

What is everybody else doing?
]]>