Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
We are at this crossroads right now. We have tested Avaya SPB but its lacking some features (mostly TE). Currently testing Telco Systems Carrier Ethernet solution which will include MPLS-TP soon Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Organization: SPITwSPOTS Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 4:07 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Scott, I had been talking to our upstream's primary network engineer a few weeks back. They tested G8032v2 stuff from several vendors, and ended up pulling it completely after a full year of testing. Ring topology is a pretty dead design when mesh type options are available with OSPF/IS-IS/MPLS. Some of the things about 8032v2 are nice, but they will also be found in SPB. What we need is for Accedian to sell the continuous-throughput-testing patent they have to another vendor. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 11/30/2014 09:17 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af wrote: Seems like the new AFMUG list scraped my PDF attachment off that last email, here's a dropbox link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6582330/WebJunk/ERPS_Towers.pdf Scott -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vander Dussen via Af Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 22:11 To: 'AF Cambium List (af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com)' Subject: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
In our cases, we need meshed networks, not rings Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 6:50 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest’s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don’t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It’s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don’t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it’s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
It's nice to see WISPs growing up. It would be nice if Mikrotik added a more modern feature set, but they seem to be busy elsewhere. Their MPLS feature set hasn't changed much in years. Nothing new in this arena for years. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 7:52:13 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest’s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don’t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It’s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don’t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it’s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
So throw in BFD, maybe? -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:52 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest’s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don’t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It’s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don’t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it’s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should beno larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com/On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Mark- Why Ciena Brocade? And generally speaking, when Ciena is referring to G.8032 is that assumed it's the second revision? Their chalk talk video is clearly referencing features unique to v2, but the documentation only identifies simply G.8032. Scott -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 05:52 To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest’s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don’t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It’s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don’t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it’s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Josh- Did your upstream engineer find an alternative solution or pursue a new protocol? Scott From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 00:08 To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Scott, I had been talking to our upstream's primary network engineer a few weeks back. They tested G8032v2 stuff from several vendors, and ended up pulling it completely after a full year of testing. Ring topology is a pretty dead design when mesh type options are available with OSPF/IS-IS/MPLS. Some of the things about 8032v2 are nice, but they will also be found in SPB. What we need is for Accedian to sell the continuous-throughput-testing patent they have to another vendor. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 11/30/2014 09:17 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af wrote: Seems like the new AFMUG list scraped my PDF attachment off that last email, here's a dropbox link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6582330/WebJunk/ERPS_Towers.pdf Scott -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vander Dussen via Af Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 22:11 To: 'AF Cambium List (af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com)' Subject: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions fordetermining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should beno larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots ::www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Scott, Yes - G8032v2. The engineering project is a task I gave to Adam Kujawski (adam...@amplex.net mailto:adam...@amplex.net), and he has been researching this for some time. I did cover him on this and he will probably have a better answer. I think we considered Brocade but I’m not sure. With Ciena we are to the point where we are asking questions that baffle the sales engineers and they have been getting the actual engineering team to answer some of them. Documentation seems to be a bit behind. I’m planning on having Adam go to WISPAMERICA, and possibly AF. If there is sufficient interest in a talk on the subject of MEF designs I’m happy to volunteer Adam :-) Lot’s of vendors seems to have proprietary solutions, and to some extent it’s starting to feel like the usual “pay us lots of money for design, implementation, and maintenance services and you don’t need no stinking documentation” routine. That’s not going to fly here so it will be interesting to see what happens given that I have no interest in that type of vendor lock-in. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Mark- Why Ciena Brocade? And generally speaking, when Ciena is referring to G.8032 is that assumed it's the second revision? Their chalk talk video is clearly referencing features unique to v2, but the documentation only identifies simply G.8032. Scott -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 05:52 To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest’s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don’t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It’s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don’t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it’s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
They decided to stay with Juniper and MPLS-TE I believe. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 07:23 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af wrote: Josh- Did your upstream engineer find an alternative solution or pursue a new protocol? Scott *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds via Af *Sent:* Monday, December 1, 2014 00:08 *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Scott, I had been talking to our upstream's primary network engineer a few weeks back. They tested G8032v2 stuff from several vendors, and ended up pulling it completely after a full year of testing. Ring topology is a pretty dead design when mesh type options are available with OSPF/IS-IS/MPLS. Some of the things about 8032v2 are nice, but they will also be found in SPB. What we need is for Accedian to sell the continuous-throughput-testing patent they have to another vendor. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots ::www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 11/30/2014 09:17 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af wrote: Seems like the new AFMUG list scraped my PDF attachment off that last email, here's a dropbox link:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6582330/WebJunk/ERPS_Towers.pdf Scott -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vander Dussen via Af Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 22:11 To: 'AF Cambium List (af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com)' Subject: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
It’s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping. Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it’s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP’s have a somewhat unique problem in that it’s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don’t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions for determining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com/On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. �A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. �G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. �I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. � We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com/On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. � If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.� I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.� I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.� Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.� Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Mark, we are on the same page! Take a look at Telco Systems. All features, good pricing Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 12/1/14, 9:52 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest¹s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don¹t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It¹s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don¹t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it¹s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
We found ciena a bit pricey Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 12/1/14, 12:19 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Mark- Why Ciena Brocade? And generally speaking, when Ciena is referring to G.8032 is that assumed it's the second revision? Their chalk talk video is clearly referencing features unique to v2, but the documentation only identifies simply G.8032. Scott -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 05:52 To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as vendors. To answer Forrest¹s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they don¹t have the recovery time we want. Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance Monitoring (Y.1731) I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It¹s pretty cool in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don¹t care what VLAN, IP Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it¹s just Ethernet. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
A mix of SPB with Bandwidth Detection would be the bomb! Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? It’s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping. Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it’s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP’s have a somewhat unique problem in that it’s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don’t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions for determining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com/ On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. ï¿1Ž2A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. ï¿1Ž2G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. ï¿1Ž2I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. ï¿1Ž2 We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com/ On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. ï¿1Ž2 If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.ï¿1Ž2 I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.ï¿1Ž2 I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.ï¿1Ž2 Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.ï¿1Ž2 Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Is bandwidth detection really that important? Can’t you implement port shut-down on your backhauls at/below certain modulation levels? Scott From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 09:44 To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? A mix of SPB with Bandwidth Detection would be the bomb! Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.comhttp://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? It’s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping. Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it’s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP’s have a somewhat unique problem in that it’s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don’t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions for determining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com/ On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. ï¿1Ž2A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. ï¿1Ž2G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. ï¿1Ž2I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. ï¿1Ž2 We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com/ On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. ï¿1Ž2 If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.ï¿1Ž2 I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.ï¿1Ž2 I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.ï¿1Ž2 Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.ï¿1Ž2 Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
You can, but if bandwidth detection was there, you wouldn't have to. It would also lessen the flapping that may cause from shutdown. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:53:57 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? Is bandwidth detection really that important? Can’t you implement port shut-down on your backhauls at/below certain modulation levels? Scott From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 09:44 To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? A mix of SPB with Bandwidth Detection would be the bomb! Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? It’s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping. Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it’s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP’s have a somewhat unique problem in that it’s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don’t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions for determining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: blockquote The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. ï¿1Ž2A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. ï¿1Ž2G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. ï¿1Ž2I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. ï¿1Ž2 We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark blockquote On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I ha ven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: blockquote Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. ï¿1Ž2 If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: blockquote Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.ï¿1Ž2 I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.ï¿1Ž2 I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.ï¿1Ž2 Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.ï¿1Ž2 Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott /blockquote /blockquote /blockquote /blockquote
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
I think another problem is that most WISP gear lacks the proper *tools* to troubleshoot and diagnose problems at layer2. That's been one of my beefs for awhile with layer2 designs, as the tools to monitor and test them aren't prevalent in networks that aren't 'metro. A long time ago I proposed to Accedian's upper management that they come out with a version of rflo but based on SPB. I wish someone would pick up that torch. Sure, you'll have vendor lock in (which I am not a fan of), but if the ITU/IEEE/ITF/whoever isn't going to design a standard protocol to work with our types of networks... well, we have to do what we have to dotoacquire and maintain acompetitive advantage. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 08:01 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: It�s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping. Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it�s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP�s have a somewhat unique problem in that it�s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don�t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions fordetermining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots ::www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. �A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. �G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. �I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. � We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should beno larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots ::www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. � If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.� I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.� I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.� Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.� Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ?
Agreed. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 08:44 AM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: A mix of SPB with Bandwidth Detection would be the bomb! Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? It�s a tough one. MEF/ITU/IEEE Ethernet standards do have a lot of the mechanisms from SONET that allows you to specify reversion time on circuits to limit damage from flapping. Performant was the only one who seems to have tried to do anything with automated bandwidth detection and making forwarding decisions. Unfortunately it�s such a niche market that I doubt there was an economic case for it. Everyone else just throws fiber and bandwidth at the problem. WISP�s have a somewhat unique problem in that it�s very easy for us to make mesh type backhaul networks yet difficult to logically segment the network at the Ethernet level. G8032.v2 attempts to solve the issue but I don�t think there is a great deal of demand from the bigger carriers for the mesh design given that bigger carriers can just throw another fiber or wavelength at the problem to segregate the network. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I've never seen a protocol that handled flapping well :/ I really wish somebody would design a routing protocol with extensions fordetermining bandwidth tho (sound familiar? :/ ) josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots ::www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af wrote: The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. �1�2A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. �1�2G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. �1�2I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. �1�2 We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions. Mark On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to be that the size of your tree should beno larger than 7 nodes. josh reynolds :: chief information officer spitwspots ::www.spitwspots.com On 12/01/2014 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 switches (Aka routers) to talk on. �1�2 If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a second on two is all. -forrest On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network.�1�2 I've attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set.�1�2 I'm leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards based and not vendor specific.�1�2 Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa Turbo Chain, etc.�1�2 Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we get ourselves pot committed. Scott
