Thanks for your advice David. Your point is very well received. One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be the ability to allow customers to use non-IP protocols. I don't think RFC2547bis will work for this. However if we do go the MPLS route then RFC2547bis will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs. That's definitely a benefit.
-----Original Message----- From: David Bigge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM To: Mike Bernico; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS Mike, An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard. I would lean towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS. Along with not letting one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any problems for a more stable long-term network. You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs. Are you considering that also? We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased. My 2 cent. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Bernico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS > > All, > > I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort to offer a > Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not MPLS > enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each > technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one of > these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion. > > Thanks > > Mike > > > > Martini VPN > > Pro > ---- > Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish > Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services like > L3 VPNs and TE > > > Con > --- > Enabling MPLS is a huge change > Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us to new and > interesting bugs and stability issues > > > > L2TPv3 VPN > > Pro > --- > Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change > > > Con > ---- > Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) > Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers. > >
