Thanks Aaron, Lukas, Mark and Nick for your valuable feedback.

Unfortunately my client is not agreeing to share any routing with ISP(us).
We are looking into option to explore creation of p2p pseudo-wire but this
will involve major design changes in customer end design and latency will
also increase spoke to spoke communication.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:13 PM Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 17/Oct/16 16:40, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> >
> > yeah, seriously.  L2 loops in VPLS networks are an endemic problem
> > because you normally end up bridging multiple separate layer 2 domains
> > together which run different bridging protocols.  This is a recipe for
> > disaster and it is totally unsurprising to hear that the OP is running
> > into this sort of problem.
> >
> > As a general rule, anything which starts off with a design requirement
> > for VPLS probably almost certainly needs ground-up rethinking.
> >
> > Nick,
> > still nursing the burn scars
>
> +1.
>
> Avoid VPLS, unless, of course, you are the thing Mr. Bush says you are
> :-)...
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Reply via email to