Here Cisco recommended Cisco ME6524 as P nodes, which is PFC-based MPLS as a 7609 without ES20, due to our network being Ethernet-only.
They are definitely trying to get some more bucks selling GSR; it's their mission to try, it's the customer mission to figure this out. Don't blame the account team for trying to do what's best for their employer, as we all expect staff at our companies to do the same. Rubens On Feb 12, 2008 9:42 PM, Hyunseog Ryu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > It's been 3 years since we run Cisco 7609 routers as P node for MPLS > networks. > Cisco recommended it. :-) > > Hyun > Saku Ytti wrote: > | On (2008-02-12 11:48 +0100), Gert Doering wrote: > | > |> As far as I understand, VPLS will *not* work on Sup720 as PE devices > - but > |> a P device won't see what's in there, so shouldn't care. > | > | ACK, not in LAN cards. However you can buy one box with SIP/ES20's > | as VPLS hub, where you connect EoMPLS from different PE boxes and > | if you have multiple hubs you full mesh them. Creating decent > | experience of VPLS to end customers with fraction of the cost. > | If you have multiple VPLS hubs, you can even use backup tunnels > | in case one hub breaks down. > | > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHsi73ZkEzJIVS03MRAl8WAJ9ei8Xv7hbDqUA35luzJuhQ32PsLQCgmSK0 > U5dfcU/6K4rUWsCkcGfdMto= > =8R+X > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
