Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
User avatar
richinuk
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:23 pm

Hey all,

I'm working on an upgraded architecture for our network that will better implement QoS in our network. They way we've done things in the past is like this:

* Wireless customers have PPPoE session from their CPE router to PPPoE server at our AP site
* Each AP has EoIP tunnel back to our core
* Customer data routed via the EoIP so our infrastructure is protected from user traffic
* Our backhaul is all routed

We classify packets at the edge (at the PPPoE server), but once they enter the EoIP tunnel we lose all control as they transit our network until they reach our core and exit the tunnel. I now need to enforce prioritisation within the infrastructure.

I had the idea of creating multiple EoIP tunnels per AP site and pushing different classes of traffic down each tunnel; then prioritise each tunnel within the backhaul network but this doesn't scale and is messy. Plus would be a debugging nightmare. On the flip side, it's technology I'm familiar with.

The other route I'm considering is using MPLS with VPLS tunnels. I'm not experienced with MPLS, so I'm hesitant with this solution. From what I've read on the wiki and the forum it seems like it can do what I want. I would replace my EoIP tunnels with a VPLS for each site and the EXP bits on the MPLS tag would contain the QoS information of each packet. Then, hop by hop my backhaul can prioritise the VPLS packets based on their EXP bits. Customer is still inside a tunnel but QoS is enforced.

Am I understanding this correct?

As a side note - is MPLS mature and stable enough for production?

Thanks for any advice!

Rich
 
CelticComms
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1766
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 5:48 am

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:22 am

Are you already running OSPF?
Interlynx | Networking and Information Security Consultants & Trainers | Email: routerlynx@gmail.com
BGP | EIGRP | OSPF | MPLS | Firewall | VPN | IPsec | Multicast | QOS | IPv4/6 | STP | VLAN | PON | AE | M2M | and more!

 
User avatar
richinuk
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:41 am

Yes. No iBGP though.
 
adairw
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

I'm running mpls with vpls tunnels in my wisp network and LOVE it. Mpls has yet to let me down. Ospf on the other hand...

Anyway, I can't answer any of your questions re prioritizing the tunnels (I'd actually like to do this as well) but I can help with the raw mpls setup if you choose to go that route.

From what I've observed there is next to no overhead with mpls/vpls vs eoip.
 
User avatar
richinuk
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:29 am

Thanks Adairw. That's excellent to know it's working well for you. Is your backhaul 100% Mikrotik, or are you using other radio's such as UBNT etc? I'm curious about compatibility issues such as max MTU etc.

Anyone else had any experience on the QoS side of things?

Rich
 
CelticComms
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1766
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 5:48 am

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:08 pm

RouterOS MPLS can certainly carry the priority through the MPLS path on EXP bits (limited by the 3 bit representation) but may not have the "hop by hop" features you are looking for. However, MPLS/VPLS is a flexible combination and more efficient than EoIP for many applications so I would say it is certainly worth considering.
Interlynx | Networking and Information Security Consultants & Trainers | Email: routerlynx@gmail.com
BGP | EIGRP | OSPF | MPLS | Firewall | VPN | IPsec | Multicast | QOS | IPv4/6 | STP | VLAN | PON | AE | M2M | and more!

 
User avatar
richinuk
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:51 am

Thanks Celtic. I'll need to check out how to achieve the hop-by-hop prioritisation as end-to-end QoS enforcement within my network is the ultimate goal.

I'm sure there must be some prioritisation based on the EXP bits whilst switching the MPLS packets, otherwise I can't see any other reason for populating this field.
 
CelticComms
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1766
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 5:48 am

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:35 pm

Populating the field allows priority to be carried over the MPLS cloud. The description of how it is handled is below:

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:MP ... _behaviour


There was some talk a few years ago about allowing queuing at the switch point based on exp bits but I am not sure that it was ever implemented. The counter argument to that approach is that within the MPLS cloud the desire is for fast switching so better to control flow on ingress to the MPLS cloud and switch fast within it.

Some carrier grade equipment could certainly both queue and switch heavy MPLS loads but on some of the smaller Mikrotik routerboards it is probably best to stick to straight switching of MPLS traffic.
Interlynx | Networking and Information Security Consultants & Trainers | Email: routerlynx@gmail.com
BGP | EIGRP | OSPF | MPLS | Firewall | VPN | IPsec | Multicast | QOS | IPv4/6 | STP | VLAN | PON | AE | M2M | and more!

 
adairw
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Advice: For QoS should we go MPLS?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:55 am

Sorry I'm late to the game. I didn't get notified of replies to this thread. We are 100% ubiquiti radios and 100% mikrotik routers.
Our network is fully routed and we use ospf. On the bridge radios between routers all I do is increase the mtu to 1560. This allows for QinQ, mpls/vpls and even PPPoE if we needed to.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Maggiore81, sindy and 52 guests