Interesting, let me also bring few things up here, not that I have much experience in MPLS/VPN but who does ? :-)
I suppose one of the problems with this particular service is that not all SP's or Enterprises fully understand the potential, or technology in general. First, SP's might not be able to provide overall cheaper connectivity for the Ent's if their network doesn't span around the existing Ent's POP's. I suppose when considering the service, one needs to realize all the advantages of it and compare it to what they have now. As with any technology, there are many ways to implement it. One might be able to just start the service for interconnecting the HUB locations for example. Another advantage could be the Internet traffic which no more has to travel thru dedicated lines which are shared thru the whole Enterprise. Referring to John's original post, the CE equipment doesn't have to participate in the MPLS, so the MPLS looks like any other connection to the rest of your network. Now, it's a choice or not, depending on the service and possibly other customer requirements, whether CE participates in MPLS. In general, SP would take care of the routing between the sites, the routing would be totally independent of their other MPLS/VPN's or Internet routing which gives the Enterprise traffic protection in the form of invisibility to other SP customers or Internet users when required. It all depends, the best thing is to study the technology and the the details of offerings. I personally have no real time experience in this whole new area but I hope in theory I should be pretty close to what one needs to be aware of. ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > To make things even more interesting... > > While discussing this with a few different vendors I decided > that this particular solution is smoke-and-mirrors, at least in > our area. We'd have to buy new point-to-point circuits that > all point to a _single_ POP. > > MPLS isn't even needed in this case because every location > would be hitting the same POP! Unless, of course, they have a > whole bunch of routers at the POP but then we're really using > MPLS to get from one side of the room to the other. > > We'd be better off simply buying a couple of frame DS3 circuits > for our hub and repointing all the branch PVCs to those > circuits. Cheaper and we accomplish the same thing without > using another vendor and without buying a whole bunch of new > circuits. > > In fact, one vendor that I asked about this proposed this very > solution, except he was suggesting we use their facilities. > They offered to set up a couple of routers exclusively for our > company to connect to. Again, we don't really accomplish much > with that solution since we can do that at our own facility if > we want to. > > John > > > > ---- On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Kent Yu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > John, > > > > I think you brought an interesting topic. > > > > With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has > been > > bothering me > > for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to > have an > > any-to-any solution? Less than 0.5% is my guess. Most of the > enterprise > > client/server applications fit into the hub-spoke topology > pretty well, > > really have no reasons to get direct connections among their > branches. > > > > > > > > Theoretically, MPLS should give the service providers the > ability to > > provide > > more scalable and cheaper fully meshed VPN solution, as the > SPs do not > > have > > to manage those hundreds of thousands PVCs, ect. From the > enterprises' > > perspective, if this gives them a reliable and affordable > alternative to > > the > > traditional hub-spoke frame relay network, it sounds > attractive, but > > seems > > to me all the current implementations are even more > expensive, not to > > mention their reliability probably is no where near the > legacy frame > > network, at least not for a while. > > > > > > > > The vendors want to sell their MPLS VPN solutions to SPs, the > SPs who > > built > > the network want to sell it enterprises , but my guess is > that 99% > > enterprises will not buy it, not till... > > > > > > > > My .02 > > > > Kent > > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Okay, I'm about to show how clueless I am when it comes to > MPLS.... > > > > > > I've been getting calls from multiple providers lately all > trying to > > > suggest that I migrate our 100-site frame relay network to > their MPLS > > > network, suggesting that we'll have any-to-any connectivity > and the > > > ability to prioritize traffic classes within the MPLS > network. > > > > > > Are any of you doing something like this? I'm going to > read up on it > > > but I'm having trouble visualizing it. Does this basically > turn our > > > network into a giant multipoint network? Do our branch > routers need > > to > > > be aware of MPLS or do providers make this transparent > somehow? How > > > does this affect routing? > > > > > > It seems that if we have any-to-any connectivity then the > branch > > > routers don't even need to run a routing protocol; every > router would > > > have one exit point to get to any destination. But, how > would the > > MPLS > > > cloud know where to route packets? The more I think about > it it seems > > > like our branch routers would have to participate in MPLS > to provide > > the > > > necessary destination info for the MPLS cloud. > > > > > > See how clueless I am? Ugh... Time to do some studying on > this. > > > Since we already do a little video conferencing over IP and > are > > working > > > on getting VoIP working, it might be beneficial to get away > from the > > > frame relay network. But since I don't understand this new > > technology, > > > I don't know if it's a viable solution for us or not. > > > > > > Off to CCO I go! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > John > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37829&t=36670 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
