Server Farm in .NET framework

Encode Data Matrix ECC200 in .NET framework Server Farm
Server Farm
Recognize Data Matrix ECC200 In .NET
Using Barcode Control SDK for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create, read, scan barcode image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
Upstream ISP Core Router
Creating Data Matrix ECC200 In .NET Framework
Using Barcode generator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Data Matrix 2d barcode image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
Upstream ISP
Recognizing Data Matrix 2d Barcode In VS .NET
Using Barcode reader for .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in .NET applications.
POP1
Draw Barcode In .NET
Using Barcode creator for .NET framework Control to generate, create bar code image in VS .NET applications.
POP2
Bar Code Decoder In .NET Framework
Using Barcode scanner for VS .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications.
User 1
DataMatrix Printer In C#
Using Barcode encoder for .NET Control to generate, create Data Matrix ECC200 image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
User 2
DataMatrix Generator In VS .NET
Using Barcode drawer for ASP.NET Control to generate, create DataMatrix image in ASP.NET applications.
User 3
Generate Data Matrix 2d Barcode In Visual Basic .NET
Using Barcode generator for .NET framework Control to generate, create ECC200 image in VS .NET applications.
User 4
Drawing Bar Code In .NET Framework
Using Barcode generation for .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in .NET framework applications.
Figure 1113 Almost-worst-case trunking
EAN-13 Supplement 5 Generator In VS .NET
Using Barcode creation for .NET framework Control to generate, create EAN-13 Supplement 5 image in .NET applications.
Server Farm
Code 128 Code Set C Maker In .NET
Using Barcode creator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Code128 image in .NET framework applications.
Upstream ISP Core Router 1 Core Router 2
ITF-14 Creation In .NET Framework
Using Barcode creator for .NET framework Control to generate, create UCC - 14 image in .NET framework applications.
Upstream ISP
Draw Barcode In Java
Using Barcode printer for Java Control to generate, create bar code image in Java applications.
POP1
Create UCC-128 In .NET Framework
Using Barcode creator for ASP.NET Control to generate, create GS1-128 image in ASP.NET applications.
POP2
Encoding Code128 In VB.NET
Using Barcode creator for .NET Control to generate, create Code128 image in .NET applications.
Figure 1114 Almost-worse case getting worse
Paint Bar Code In C#.NET
Using Barcode generator for .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in .NET applications.
11
Bar Code Reader In Java
Using Barcode scanner for Java Control to read, scan read, scan image in Java applications.
Server Farm
EAN / UCC - 13 Creator In VS .NET
Using Barcode printer for ASP.NET Control to generate, create EAN-13 image in ASP.NET applications.
Upstream ISP Core Router 1 Core Router 2
UPC Code Encoder In Java
Using Barcode generation for Java Control to generate, create UPC Symbol image in Java applications.
Upstream ISP
Barcode Printer In Visual Basic .NET
Using Barcode generator for .NET framework Control to generate, create bar code image in VS .NET applications.
POP 1
POP 2
Figure 1115 Worst-case trunking
reverse of a source tree, with one source S and many members of the tree G As we progress, you will see many parallels between multicast architecture and trunking architecture, although they will often be mirror images The next potential simplification lies in the abstraction that separates traffic classes from trunks A traffic engineering service class associated with guaranteed service is, by definition, not best effort The class is not dependent on the path it follows When capacity permits, it is perfectly reasonable for several classes of service to share a label for all or part of a topology between the same routers This forms another opportunity for merging trunks and simplifying the core Again, remember that one of the advantages of MPLS is that it can both aggregate and deaggregated (see Tunneled Trunks )
Per-Hop Merging Behavior
Deciding when trunks can be merged is actually fairly simple While the endpoints of the trunk need to be predetermined, trunk setup is hop-by-hop, much like a routed path As the trunk is being established, each router hop has its existing list of trunks checked to see whether it has an existing trunk of the same service class and exit point If the trunk setup instructions contain an explicit route, there may be further constraints that a trunk has to follow the same predetermined explicit route to the destination think of IP strict source
The Intraprovider Core: IP/MPLS
routing versus loose source routing, or an ATM PVC, though where each hop is specified may vary (hop-by-hop versus all at ingress) If these constraints are satisfied, the trunks can merge In MPLS, this means that while their traffic arrived with different labels, they can leave with the same outbound label With maximal merging, the number of trunks reduces to R*C sink trees (see Figure 1116) Let s reexamine the ISP we have been considering, with a temporary assumption that the merging router can be a single point of failure (see Table 1112) Also, in Figure 1117, assume that the merged facilities do not support different classes of service MPLS label-switched routers do not necessarily need full routing information to merge paths or to protect or restore with alternate paths The knowledge of routing does need to be at an LER that creates the path There does have to be sufficient knowledge at every node, including LSRs, to select the next hop during path creation/recreation (on link failure) In IP routing, aggregation can often be equivalent to merging Assume, in Figure 1118, that all the customers are single-homed and use your PA space, so aggregation at the POP level is appropriate The difference is that an IP router, on receiving an aggregate, cannot deaggregate the packets without external information such as a routing policy in a routing registry
Server Farm
Upstream ISP Core Router
Upstream ISP
POP1
POP2
Figure 1116 Benefits of merging
11 Table 1112 Bandwidth and Media versus Pipes and Hoses (Two upstreams, Single Merge Point) POP TO MERGE POINT 4 OC-48s or 4 2 OC-192s MERGE POINT TO UPSTREAM 2 OC-192s to each upstream
CUSTOMER 1 2 3 4A 5 6 7 4B
BANDWIDTH 1 Gbps 1 Gbps 2 Gbps 1 Gbps 1 Gbps 500 Mbps 500 Mbps 1 Gbps
POP 1
POP HOSE 5 Gbps from POP to merge point
3 Gbps from POP to merge point
3 OC-48s or 2 OC-192s
2 OC-192s to each upstream
Merging with Multiple Service Classes
Another consequence of TE being an alternative path determination mechanism to what the basic IGP would discover is that there is not necessarily a reason to create LSPs for best-effort (BE) traffic simply use the path found by routing and don t use MPLS for BE Your overall capacity planning, however, might be helped by assigning BE to LSPs By doing so, you can predict when you might run out of capacity for BE services Remember that BE trunks are aggregates of all BE flows You would never need a trunk for each BE flow
Tunneled Trunks
Trunks are tunnels, and tunnels can be encapsulated in other tunnels In MPLS, we aggregate trunks by pushing a new label onto the stack of labels on a packet This sort of aggregated trunk is just as much a trunk as the other types we have examined (with the exception of elephant trunks) The rule is that any two trunks can be aggregated if they share a portion of an underlying LSP If you examine Figure 1119, you will see that the aggregated trunk can carry different classes, because the class is in the inner label At any point, popping off the outer label and sending the constituent trunks on their separate ways can deaggregate the trunk Other trunks can back up aggregate trunks, and it is generally easier to plan backup for the lesser number of trunks that are aggregates See Survivability Mechanisms, later in this chapter