>>>> Peter van Oene 7/21/03 3:26:30 PM >>> >>Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) >> >>Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. >>Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke >>sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to >>our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. > >Cool. I thought it was a IP VPN based network, but wasn't completely >sure. You might consider BGP at the hub site just to isolate your hub. If
>they wack up their PE box and give you way to many routes, it might become >painful. Usually I recommend the provider asked the customer to run BGP or >RIP vs OSPF for this reason, but it makes sense from the customers >perspective as well. This also mitigates some messy backdoor scenarios >that come up with spokes gain spoke to spoke or non VPN spoke to hub >connections. They mentioned that iBGP was an option but given our network design this would complicate matters, at least as I understand it. > > >>The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we >>added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to >>plan ahead better. > >Spoke wise, can you not pre-provision some aggregate blocks to the spokes >inline with growth expectations? This would ease your provisioning >pain. I'd ask for portal capability for this as well (spoke static route >adds). They likely don't have it, but it isn't that hard to do and would >likely be consistent with stuff they may already be considering. In other >words, they won't likely be able to do it, but you might help them make it >happen sooner than later. > To some extent we can preprovision, especially if we stick to our addressing scheme! Portal capability would be nice. I'll have to ask them about that. Right now, route adds require a telephone call, or possibly an email. If I had some web-based control, for example, I'd be quite thrilled. >I should note that I'm not directly familiar with their offering. > >>This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. >>Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a >>single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our >>routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of >>these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, >>which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. > >I take it sharing routing information wasn't a big concern for your >company? It seems to be for some, but I never saw the risk myself. It was a concern for a moment, but upon further reflection we decided that we're not really any worse off than we are right now. We're already at the mercy of the provider, and if they have people internally who are willing to attempt to gain useful information from our network connections then we're in trouble already. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72721&t=72704 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
