On 27 March 2016 at 21:37, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 27/Mar/16 01:46, Mark Tees wrote: > >> My gut feeling is that the safer option is to run things separately >> but I also do not wish to create an administrative nightmare for other >> people to work on the network. >> >> Any input, experience, or additional points would be greatly appreciated. > > I recall in the early days of MPLS (and specifically, l3vpn's), carriers > ran separate hardware for l3vpn's from that carrying Internet traffic. > > As costs and management got out of control, they run l3vpn's and > Internet in the same chassis, but on different line cards. > > Eventually, everything converged.
That is a telling point. > > Are we seeing in interest in going back to separate hardware for l3vpn's > and Internet? Not sure, but your interest in this is certainly piquing mine. It is probably more of a paranoid safety thing than anything. > > We run a "converged" network. The only time where I've felt that > services need to be physically separate is for BNG. As much as I'd like > to run both my BNG and business services/Internet on the same edge > router, the velocity of feature movements in the BNG space just don't > make it feasible. Definitely agree with keeping BNG separate. > > I think separating your services on a hardware basis will be costly in > money and human time terms, but you know your network better than I do. > What will be telling is whether you are able to maintain this > structure/policy as your network grows, i.e., you or the business are > never tempted to re-use a network for the function the other network was > designed for, due to resource constraints, time constraints, financial > constraints, convenience constraints, e.t.c. That's true. > > Mark. -- Regards, Mark L. Tees _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
