At 04:12 PM 7/23/2002 +0000, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >At 1:46 PM +0000 7/23/02, Peter van Oene wrote: > >Before going down this road, I tend to wonder what drives people this > >direction. Exactly what is it about poorly scaling, flat networks that > >turn people on? > >My impression is that it is an unholy alliance of traditional telcos >and traditional vendors to traditional telcos, coupled with >FUD/cluelessness with certain enterprises who think L2 is >automatically configurable and infinitely scalable. > >I have seen estimates from telcos that without massive retraining, >they think they can only support 10% L3, 90% L2 with their existing >provisioning and support personnel.
They obviously haven't configured L2VPN recently :) IP looks pretty good comparatively from a complexity standpoint. > >Last I checked, IP did a pretty decent job of providing a > >robust means of interconnection between remote sites. To me, its LANE all > >over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and try > >and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your > >control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache > >from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find someone > >who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. > > > >As far as building MPLS based bridging networks I would suggest that in > >many cases, the technology is pretty fresh at this point. The ppvpn group > >in the ietf and the vendor community (same thing?) are still considering a > >number of candidate solutions. However, at this point you should be able > >to find vendors capable of providing point to point topologies with various > >degrees of scaling properties. As well, I have heard that Riverstone may > >have a point to multipoint (ie capable of replicating one packet across a > >series of point to point LSP's) solution, but I have not researched it. In > >the future, a true VPLS solution should shake out that provides multi > >vendor compatible, 802.1d like bridging (ie mac learning with some type of > >listen/learn/forward STP like loop prevention). Again though, I tend to > >ask myself, is this really what we want to do with our nifty IP networks. > > > >I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks > >with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported > >by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. > > > >Most access gear at this point supports some type of MPLS however. What > >type of gear are you using currently that makes it prohibitively expensive > >to upgrade at this point? > > > > > > > > > > > >At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +0000, bbfaye wrote: > >>we are handling a case of a MAN project now. > >>We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means >we > >>have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). > >>Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the > >>aggressive > >>nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the > >>disadvantage. > >>Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn > >in > >>the man? > >>thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49459&t=49346 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
