I think it is not a problem if this is technically doable, VoIP and VoATM both work, but I am not sure if many companies can tolerate the availability of the IP network when it comes to their critical voice traffic.
ATM switches will sit in a network as if they do not exist, if you do not touch it or overload the capacity, they may not bother you for years, can a rotuer in an IP network do that? Kent ----- Original Message ----- From: "bbfaye" To: Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:21 AM Subject: Re: mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346] > Kent, > I heard equant guys managing a nice MPLS l3 vpn based on cisco's machines. > And they offer 4 class qos and voice service to their subscriber. > any one from equant? > > -- > > >Peter, > > > >> 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. > > > >I agree that STP should not be beyond the campus, anything up from better be > >ip based. > >I think the original question was about how to separate vpns on lower end > >devices, > >either label or vlan tag, ie configuring l2vpn on many access level devices > >vs. configuring vlans, I guess vlans are easy to configure and manage in > >this case. > >For our discussion, IMHO, LANE is too complicated for the subscribers and > >l3vpn is not easy for the providers, l2vpn is, relatively speaking, simple > >for both . > > > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > >I would like to know how people are using IP/MPLS network to integrate voice > >and data? > > > >Thanks > >Kent > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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=50076&t=49346 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
