On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 04:31:02 AM Rick Martin wrote: > We advertise 4 > full class B networks as /16's and one as two /17's. Our > IP assignments are geographically distributed based on > the Internet connection the customer will be using.
Classful routing is long dead. So the correct notation is just "slash-16" or "slash-17" or "slash-whatever" :-). > We are in the bidding process for migrating to a vendor > owned MPLS core network,... So right now, you're managing your own Layer 3 routing, and your 3rd party providers simply deliver Layer 2 transport. Pretty stock. When/if you migrate to this MPLS provider, are you saying you will be ditching the Layer 2 transport for a Layer 3 interconnect with the new MPLS provider? > I have discussed this with my Cisco team and they have > come up with a couple of options the most compelling at > this point is GRE tunnels from CE to primary and > secondary Internet connections, run our own routing > protocol over the tunnels to manage the default route. This is why I never ask vendors to run me up solutions. Eeeek!!! > Is anybody else running this type of scenario? If so, how > is it working for you? > > What are you doing to accomplish diverse Internet routing > in a Vendor managed MPLS environment that is different? I'm getting the inkling that you're switching to a Layer 3 transport with this new MPLS provider, and throwing out your (simpler) Layer 2 hauls. Before we start throwing out solutions, is it possible for your MPLS provider to offer Layer 2 transport, much like you have today, across their MPLS network? I'm assuming you're choosing this MPLS provider to reduce your transport costs, right? 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/
