Why don't use 2 vendors in every _important_ site, using routing (OSPF or EGRP) for VPN balancing? Or just add 1 low performance link to _another_ vendor and build traditional (tunnel + IPsec) VPN structure in addition to MPLS-based provider's solution?
> > We've been researching various VPN options for past year or so and we're > in discussions with yet another vendor regarding their MPLS-based > solution. All but one of the vendors we've talked to suffer from a > similar 'problem', but I'm curious to get your opinions on this. I'm > wondering if I'm more concerned about this problem than I should be. > > Most of the vendors we've talked to only have a single POP in our area. > It seems to me that if we were to choose an option like that we'd, in > effect, have a network of point-to-point circuits terminating at that > one POP. I'm not that familiar with the hardware but I suppose it's > possible that all of those circuits would be terminating on just a > couple of huge routers. My concern is that a problem in one POP could > take down our entire network, whereas with our current frame relay > vendor we have great geographic diversity with the frame/ATM switches. > > The vendors who have a single POP that we've looked at are MCI and > Virtela. [I must say hello to Gene and Brice at Virtela since I know > they'll get a copy of this. <g>] Given that these vendors seem to have > rather robust infrastructure, am I more worried than I need to be that > all of our connections might terminate at the same spot? I'm sure those > POPs are almost bullet-proof, but I'm still a little leary to put all of > our eggs into a single basket like that. > > Any opinions would be welcome, especially if my assumptions are wrong > and you'd like to correct me. > > Regards, > John > --
