On Wednesday 18 November 2009 11:10:22 pm [email protected] wrote: > whatÂ’s wrong in extending your spanning-tree domain, as > long as numbers of nodes are not too many?
You can't know that the number of nodes or VLAN's won't grow. And chances are, they will. > People are > using trunk links between different sites across the > world in an enterprise environment, and this is for what > you use a trunk link. Fair point. Digressing a little from the OP's post, control planes for Ethernet in the LAN (and small WAN) have different characteristics from various points of view when considered for large scale, probably Metro deployments. > I would prefer the usage of trunk > links and routed VLAN interfaces over EoMPLS and VPLS. YMMV, but the performance of IP and EoMPLS shouldn't be that different since it's all done in hardware. VPLS is a little more complex by its nature. > (keeping in mind the throughput issues on EoMPLS, mtu > problems and overall network complexity) I'm not sure increased MTU requirements makes a network any more complex. Besides, in a campus LAN/WAN with your own fibre, you can control the MTU on each of the links, which is great. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
