Thanks for the kind words, Michelle! Bill Creighton CCNP Network Design Engineer, eVPN NSPM AT&T Business Service Delivery 231 Martingale Rd. Suite 800 Schaumburg, IL 60173-2008 Office: 847-407-4108 Fax: 847-598-6400 Mobile: 630-290-7000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Truman, Michelle, RTSLS > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: L2 vs L3 [7:73255] > > > Actually John, contrary to what was stated, AT&T has a really great > bunch of pre-sales engineers who do give customers lots of > time, and the > time of day if they need it, to talk about VPN's. Not to > mention lots of > support on the backend if you are already a customer. We've > been running > 2547 VPN's since 1998 over Fr/ATM and since 2000 over our IP backbone. > Customers using VOIP really like our VPN's because they have inherent > full mesh topologies and built in QOS using CBFWQ/LLQ/WRED. > > L2 VPN's are for carriers who don't have other choices, such > as Sprint, > which has IP globally, but not frame relay. They are able to provide a > global VPN that way. They didn't really have a choice. Now, they have > totally done an about face due to massive customer pressure and are > implementing 2547 after saying for years that it wasn't necessary, > sucks, etc. > > the industry choice appears to be 2547 though you can't > forget the Qwest > solution as it is popular with many customers. L2 is nice for > end to end > routing control also. But only if you NEED full mesh. > Otherwise, there's > nothing wrong with good old fashioned FR and ATM pvc's. 2547 VPN's are > different and require some thought, because you are > essentially routing > WITH your carrier instead of transparently to your carrier. > > Michelle > > Michelle Truman CCIE # 8098 > Principal Technical Consultant > AT&T Solutions Center > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Work: 651-998-0949 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:55 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: L2 vs L3 [7:73255] > > > >You have a lot of options. I recommend Sprint first, then Level-3, > >then GX. Unless you are already in bed with Qwest or AT&T, they > >won't give you the time-of-day for support (and you are going to > >need good support for an offering like this). In particular, I > >recommend Sprint's PW option (UTI on Cisco GSR), and Level-3's > >(3)Packet MPLS-VPN option (Martini L2VPN on Laurel Networks). > > > > I just checked the Sprintbiz site and they seem to offer a > network-based > IP > VPN and a CPE-based IP VPN. It appears to me that these are both L3 > VPNs. > It's hard to find much more than marketing materials on their site, > though, > and I'd love to read more details. Are those the Sprint services you > were > referring to? And what is the PW option you refer to? > > I've already read a little about the Level-3 MPLS-VPN and it sounded > like a > good option but we come back to the full-mesh issue. It would > take over > 5300 > PVCs to create a full mesh with their L2 VPN. A full mesh isn't a > requirement, but it is a very nice feature of the Qwest PRN > service and > given our network design and traffic flow, that is a great benefit. > > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73304&t=73255 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
