It’s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping.
Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it’s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP’s have a somewhat unique problem in that it’s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don’t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark > On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ > > I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions for > determining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) > josh reynolds :: chief information officer > spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com/>On 12/01/2014 > 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: >> The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable >> links. �A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to >> the constant bridge table flushing. �G.8032 should be able to deal with >> this type of failure more gracefully. �I think MPLS also has ways of >> dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our >> existing equipment does not support MPLS. � We have to deploy new >> equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are >> thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. >> >> Mark >> >> >>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to >>> be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. >>> josh reynolds :: chief information officer >>> spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com/>On 12/01/2014 >>> 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: >>>> Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? >>>> >>>> The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site >>>> and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer >>>> 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. � If I yank a ring cable, I lose >>>> about a second on two is all. >>>> >>>> -forrest >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.� >>>> I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.� >>>> I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU >>>> standards based and not vendor specific.� Other options include Brocade >>>> MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.� Any shared wisdom would be greatly >>>> appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>> >> >
