On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 03:23:43 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > Not at all. But adding MPLS to customer would increase > our exposure.
At $previous_job, this was a serious consideration, mostly because the customers were starting to pressure ISP's into making redundancy not only native, but usable without much input from the customer. Redundancy at Layer 2 (which is how we normally deliver the last mile) is difficult at best. So throwing an MPLS-capable CPE device into the customer's location made sense. But as others have pointed out, issues such as security, size of IGP growth, cost, e.t.c., are all a factor to consider. Moreover, if I were going to deploy an MPLS-capable device in a building, I'd like to be able to re-use it for other customers in the vicinity, otherwise it's a waste of money and good ports, given back then, there was nothing small enough that supported MPLS and cost peanuts for this kind of massive deployment. I suppose the ASR901 could be considered small enough now, but the idea of adding a CPE device to my backbone that I will use for only one customer, among other risks, just doesn't bode well. I'm all for being tough with customers and getting them to manage their own redundancy. 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/
