WCCP-2 and MPLS

[cnmendonca]

Hi

This is a question regarding WCCP-2 and MPLS as well.

I have a customer who has Cisco Catalyst 6500 switches and would also like to run MPLS on the Network. MPLS as such is supported only on the Layer-3 modules. The customer has the GIG OSM modules and ATM modules in the switch. The GIG Modules connect to the Internet and the ATM modules connect to various of the branches. The Content Engines are connected to FastEthernet modules on the 6500 which do not support MPLS.

Now to run WCCP-2 redirection, this would be done on the GIG interfaces with the "ip wccp redirect out" command on that interface in addition to the usual commands for WCCP-2. Now what happens is that the input packets received via the branches are all going to be MPLS tagged. Will these packets be redirected to the CE before they are sent off the output GIG interfaces.

Also the customer require to run IP spoofing with WCCP-2. Will the same thing happen in the opposite direction.

Will this work at all.

Thanks

[ngorenko]

You described the physical connection, but not logical structure.

1. You did not mentioned does the customer have Layer 3 module installed in Catalyst 6500? Catalyst 6500 without RSM (route switch module) can not make desition on the 3d layer.

All modules that you mentioned are 2d layer modules. Usually, when you have RSM, you create virtual interfaces, where you configure the routing or 3d layer information. Of course, you can configure it directly in the physical interface (you need to allow this fuction, by default, physical interfaces are switched ones).

2. Catalyst 6500 - what role it has in MPLS network (CE, PE, something else)?

3. What you mean under "sent to Internet"? Usually the packets to Internet are sent without MPLS tags. MPLS tags are used inside of MPLS backbone. The customer also receie pure IP-packet without any addtional tags.

[Gilles Dufour]

wccp does not work with mpls currently.

So, a tagged packet can't be redirected via wccp.

Gilles.

[cnmendonca]

Hi Gilles

Thanks for the reply.

Is Cisco planning to support this in the coming future ?.

Thanks