On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 03:46:17 PM Eric Van Tol wrote: > The primary reason it's L2 was because we had a slow > migration from ME3400s/MRV OS912s to ME3600s. There > were connection points in the ring that required L2 > because of intra-ring L2 services we were providing to > customers.
You could put all these inside EoMPLS (or VPLS). > Secondly, the 50ms-failover times of G.8032 > ERPS was a big decision point. That said, I've recently > become aware of LFA and plan to test that in the lab. Indeed. Do test rLFA as well. > The other thing that I just remembered is that we still > have a lot of ME3400s in the network that don't support > >1998B IP MTUs. While I can certainly boost the > Junipers and ME3600s to 1998, I don't see how it really > gains much. Thoughts? Fair point. I mean, to be pedantic, you could have asymmetric MTU's across the different platforms, provided you take care of any routing protocols, and also advertise the effective MTU to your customers. However, to avoid any confusion, you can configure the effective MTU on all devices. After all, during the migration, you'll be touching all the devices anyway. 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/
