very interested in the MPLS implementation also. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:00 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote:
> can somebody lay down the dummy version of MPLS implementation > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Shayne Lebrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Plus one for MPLS/VPLS. Gives you a lot more control over what goes >> where. >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 6, 2015 8:52 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist >> >> >> >> If you already have a routed core network, especially if you have OSPF >> rings (like we do), I figure it'd make more sense to put MPLS on top. I >> haven't done it yet because we haven't needed to do anything like customer >> tunnels for multi-site interconnects, but we're getting there. >> >> On 8/6/2015 4:32 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote: >> >> I'm running Mikrotik, all routed, got a different subnet for each tower, >> got a different subnet between each tower, public IP's routed to the >> customers, all the fun stuff. >> >> I'm thinking of restructuring my network so the entire backbone is one >> big L2 network. If I plug into the switch at the tower at tower 5 it will >> be no different than tower 1 or 7. Each AP would still have it's own >> subnet, but the backside of each AP would be on the same L2 as the rest. >> >> I'm planning on looping it all the way around and building redundancy >> into the network, haven't quite decided how I'm going to do that yet, might >> use STP, that is a little ways down the road. I'll have another fiber feed >> in case the main goes down and I'd like to have a level of redundancy >> should a tower go out, I'll only lose the one rather than the ones behind >> it as well. >> >> I've fried my brain today, so if I'm sounding half crazy, just tell me to >> take the rest of the day off... >> >> I'm thinking it might be best to have a few large L2 segments to the >> backbone, maybe three or four, rather than one big L2 and much simpler than >> 12+ subnets from tower to tower. >> >> Input is appreciated. >> >> >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
