A mix of SPB with Bandwidth Detection would be the bomb!
Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? 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 <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> 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. ï¿1Ž2A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. ï¿1Ž2G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. ï¿1Ž2I 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. ï¿1Ž2 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 <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes.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. ï¿1Ž2 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 <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.ï¿1Ž2 I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.ï¿1Ž2 I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.ï¿1Ž2 Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.ï¿1Ž2 Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
