Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Mike Hammett]

Right, and I don't believe Mikrotik supports them all, but upon introduction 
they did support many of them and I've more popping up as time goes on.

When is IS going to have MPLS?


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeff Broadwick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> MPLS isn't one thing, it's a set of over 50 RFCs.  Most implementations
> don't have all of them at this point.  When you look to implement MPLS, 
> you
> need to know which parts you need and then make sure that your provider
> supports them.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:46 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points
>
> Mikrotik supports MPLS.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points
>
>
>> Ok.
>>
>> When someone designs an end to end  transport network they are committing
>> to
>> being a layer3 or a layer2 network by design.
>> Sure you can have bridged components on a routed network, and you can 
>> have
>> routed end devices on a bridged network, and you can do it differently on
>> your WAN, MAN, Last mile Relays.  But functionally all-in-all, your city
>> transport that transposts the VPN is either are layer2 or layer3 network.
>> This is what defines what VPN alternative you have to offer.
>>
>> One of the benefits I sell is Office to Office connectivity, BYPASSING 
>> the
>> Public Internet, with a controlled On-Net path across my LAyer3 network.
>> Adding the benefit of one connection to accomplish both Internet and
>> private
>> network functionality.  This is both a QOS and Cost advantage, but all in
>> all, I price it like Internet access, because its functionally routed 
>> like
>> Internet traffic using Layer3.
>>
>> Its important to under stand the difference between Layer2 and Layer3
>> VLANs.
>> LAyer3 generally offers shortest path, via the same rules that apply to
>> all
>> customer's traffic.  Layer2 VLANs offer something different.  Layer2
>> generally provides a static path (not necessarilly shortest path)
>> engineered
>> between two points.  When at Layer2, a defines capacity can be
>> provisioned,
>> without concern for distance and quality that might come into play to
>> effect
>> real world throughput if had done at layer3 w/ native re-transmission and
>> Congestion avoidence mechanisms.  There are many efficiency benefits of
>> LAyer3, that will never be achieved at Layer2, and Layer2 offers many
>> things
>> Layer 3 will never deliver.
>>
>> The point I'm making is, the provider needs to determine the factors that
>> are most beneficial to them as a provider and their prospective market.
>> Those decissions are so much more important than the type of VPN or VLAN
>> used.  And that is what you are really comparing when comparing two
>> providers' VPN Connectivity offerings.
>>
>> To offer basic VLAN redundancy it requires all paths to be connected at
>> layer2 so the Spanning tree protocols talk and work.  But layer2
>> redundancy
>> protocols can fuinctionally break LAyer3 redundancy (such as OSPF and
>> IBGP).
>> So its really choosing one or the other.
>>
>> MPLS solves all this, by adding VPN, Layer2, QOS, preferred path, all in 
>> a
>> single platform of protocols.  Sorta the best of both worlds (LAyer2 and
>> LAyer3).
>> The problem is MPLS is not cost effective to deploy in most cases, 
>> because
>> the MPLS manufacturers charge to high an inflated markup on MPLS enabled
>> gear. There is no technical reason why MPLS gear needs to cost more. But
>> it
>> still does.  Its the difference between buying a new $20,000 MPLS router
>> and
>> a used $500 thirdparty or used non-MPLS router. Sure there are exceptions
>> all over the place to get a deal, but the whole network needs to talk 
>> MPLS
>> for it to really be beneficial, so if you can't find 100% of it cheap, 
>> the
>> reast you pay top dollar.
>&g

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Jeff Broadwick]

MPLS isn't one thing, it's a set of over 50 RFCs.  Most implementations
don't have all of them at this point.  When you look to implement MPLS, you
need to know which parts you need and then make sure that your provider
supports them.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

Mikrotik supports MPLS.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> Ok.
>
> When someone designs an end to end  transport network they are committing 
> to
> being a layer3 or a layer2 network by design.
> Sure you can have bridged components on a routed network, and you can have
> routed end devices on a bridged network, and you can do it differently on
> your WAN, MAN, Last mile Relays.  But functionally all-in-all, your city
> transport that transposts the VPN is either are layer2 or layer3 network.
> This is what defines what VPN alternative you have to offer.
>
> One of the benefits I sell is Office to Office connectivity, BYPASSING the
> Public Internet, with a controlled On-Net path across my LAyer3 network.
> Adding the benefit of one connection to accomplish both Internet and 
> private
> network functionality.  This is both a QOS and Cost advantage, but all in
> all, I price it like Internet access, because its functionally routed like
> Internet traffic using Layer3.
>
> Its important to under stand the difference between Layer2 and Layer3 
> VLANs.
> LAyer3 generally offers shortest path, via the same rules that apply to 
> all
> customer's traffic.  Layer2 VLANs offer something different.  Layer2
> generally provides a static path (not necessarilly shortest path) 
> engineered
> between two points.  When at Layer2, a defines capacity can be 
> provisioned,
> without concern for distance and quality that might come into play to 
> effect
> real world throughput if had done at layer3 w/ native re-transmission and
> Congestion avoidence mechanisms.  There are many efficiency benefits of
> LAyer3, that will never be achieved at Layer2, and Layer2 offers many 
> things
> Layer 3 will never deliver.
>
> The point I'm making is, the provider needs to determine the factors that
> are most beneficial to them as a provider and their prospective market.
> Those decissions are so much more important than the type of VPN or VLAN
> used.  And that is what you are really comparing when comparing two
> providers' VPN Connectivity offerings.
>
> To offer basic VLAN redundancy it requires all paths to be connected at
> layer2 so the Spanning tree protocols talk and work.  But layer2 
> redundancy
> protocols can fuinctionally break LAyer3 redundancy (such as OSPF and 
> IBGP).
> So its really choosing one or the other.
>
> MPLS solves all this, by adding VPN, Layer2, QOS, preferred path, all in a
> single platform of protocols.  Sorta the best of both worlds (LAyer2 and
> LAyer3).
> The problem is MPLS is not cost effective to deploy in most cases, because
> the MPLS manufacturers charge to high an inflated markup on MPLS enabled
> gear. There is no technical reason why MPLS gear needs to cost more. But 
> it
> still does.  Its the difference between buying a new $20,000 MPLS router 
> and
> a used $500 thirdparty or used non-MPLS router. Sure there are exceptions
> all over the place to get a deal, but the whole network needs to talk MPLS
> for it to really be beneficial, so if you can't find 100% of it cheap, the
> reast you pay top dollar.
>
> Many of the MPLS open source products are developing, but its scary
> endorsing a platform, that is not widely supported yet by several open
> source router systems.
> It locks you into a platform that may or may not ever get complete or work
> 100% correctly.  I think OPENSOURCE MPLS is exciting to watch, but its not
> quite there yet.
>
> Layer3 VPN is a great way to get your IP space to securly end up from one
> side of your network to the other. This is benefical when someone has 
> chosen
> a LAyer3 transport design, because itworks voer layer3 :-)
>
> If you chose a LAyer2 VLAN as a replacement for VPN that is also OK, but 
> its
> a complete change of network design.
>
> We use VLAN all the time, but we route between VLANs, apposed to use the
> VLAN to cross our entire network as a VPN.
>
> Personally, if everything cost the same, my whole network would be MPLS
> based, but it 

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Mike Hammett]

Mikrotik supports MPLS.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> Ok.
>
> When someone designs an end to end  transport network they are committing 
> to
> being a layer3 or a layer2 network by design.
> Sure you can have bridged components on a routed network, and you can have
> routed end devices on a bridged network, and you can do it differently on
> your WAN, MAN, Last mile Relays.  But functionally all-in-all, your city
> transport that transposts the VPN is either are layer2 or layer3 network.
> This is what defines what VPN alternative you have to offer.
>
> One of the benefits I sell is Office to Office connectivity, BYPASSING the
> Public Internet, with a controlled On-Net path across my LAyer3 network.
> Adding the benefit of one connection to accomplish both Internet and 
> private
> network functionality.  This is both a QOS and Cost advantage, but all in
> all, I price it like Internet access, because its functionally routed like
> Internet traffic using Layer3.
>
> Its important to under stand the difference between Layer2 and Layer3 
> VLANs.
> LAyer3 generally offers shortest path, via the same rules that apply to 
> all
> customer's traffic.  Layer2 VLANs offer something different.  Layer2
> generally provides a static path (not necessarilly shortest path) 
> engineered
> between two points.  When at Layer2, a defines capacity can be 
> provisioned,
> without concern for distance and quality that might come into play to 
> effect
> real world throughput if had done at layer3 w/ native re-transmission and
> Congestion avoidence mechanisms.  There are many efficiency benefits of
> LAyer3, that will never be achieved at Layer2, and Layer2 offers many 
> things
> Layer 3 will never deliver.
>
> The point I'm making is, the provider needs to determine the factors that
> are most beneficial to them as a provider and their prospective market.
> Those decissions are so much more important than the type of VPN or VLAN
> used.  And that is what you are really comparing when comparing two
> providers' VPN Connectivity offerings.
>
> To offer basic VLAN redundancy it requires all paths to be connected at
> layer2 so the Spanning tree protocols talk and work.  But layer2 
> redundancy
> protocols can fuinctionally break LAyer3 redundancy (such as OSPF and 
> IBGP).
> So its really choosing one or the other.
>
> MPLS solves all this, by adding VPN, Layer2, QOS, preferred path, all in a
> single platform of protocols.  Sorta the best of both worlds (LAyer2 and
> LAyer3).
> The problem is MPLS is not cost effective to deploy in most cases, because
> the MPLS manufacturers charge to high an inflated markup on MPLS enabled
> gear. There is no technical reason why MPLS gear needs to cost more. But 
> it
> still does.  Its the difference between buying a new $20,000 MPLS router 
> and
> a used $500 thirdparty or used non-MPLS router. Sure there are exceptions
> all over the place to get a deal, but the whole network needs to talk MPLS
> for it to really be beneficial, so if you can't find 100% of it cheap, the
> reast you pay top dollar.
>
> Many of the MPLS open source products are developing, but its scary
> endorsing a platform, that is not widely supported yet by several open
> source router systems.
> It locks you into a platform that may or may not ever get complete or work
> 100% correctly.  I think OPENSOURCE MPLS is exciting to watch, but its not
> quite there yet.
>
> Layer3 VPN is a great way to get your IP space to securly end up from one
> side of your network to the other. This is benefical when someone has 
> chosen
> a LAyer3 transport design, because itworks voer layer3 :-)
>
> If you chose a LAyer2 VLAN as a replacement for VPN that is also OK, but 
> its
> a complete change of network design.
>
> We use VLAN all the time, but we route between VLANs, apposed to use the
> VLAN to cross our entire network as a VPN.
>
> Personally, if everything cost the same, my whole network would be MPLS
> based, but it doesn't cost the same.  And I can undercut my competitors on
> price by atleast a factor of 10x, because I'm not using MPLS.  So to do it
> with MPLS, you really have to be focused on marketing to the segment of 
> the
> population that udnerstands the difference and will pay for it.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Messag

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Tom DeReggi]

I'd love to hear more on how it goes, as it goes.

We came really close to giving MT's MPLS a try last Spring as well, but got 
cold feet at the last minute, and went a different route.
Not because of the MPLS code, but because of other MT issues.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> Tom,
>
> We are beta testing mikrotik MPLS in our network. So far , not bad at
> all ...
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:44 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points
>
> Ok.
>
> When someone designs an end to end  transport network they are
> committing to
> being a layer3 or a layer2 network by design.
> Sure you can have bridged components on a routed network, and you can
> have
> routed end devices on a bridged network, and you can do it differently
> on
> your WAN, MAN, Last mile Relays.  But functionally all-in-all, your city
>
> transport that transposts the VPN is either are layer2 or layer3
> network.
> This is what defines what VPN alternative you have to offer.
>
> One of the benefits I sell is Office to Office connectivity, BYPASSING
> the
> Public Internet, with a controlled On-Net path across my LAyer3 network.
>
> Adding the benefit of one connection to accomplish both Internet and
> private
> network functionality.  This is both a QOS and Cost advantage, but all
> in
> all, I price it like Internet access, because its functionally routed
> like
> Internet traffic using Layer3.
>
> Its important to under stand the difference between Layer2 and Layer3
> VLANs.
> LAyer3 generally offers shortest path, via the same rules that apply to
> all
> customer's traffic.  Layer2 VLANs offer something different.  Layer2
> generally provides a static path (not necessarilly shortest path)
> engineered
> between two points.  When at Layer2, a defines capacity can be
> provisioned,
> without concern for distance and quality that might come into play to
> effect
> real world throughput if had done at layer3 w/ native re-transmission
> and
> Congestion avoidence mechanisms.  There are many efficiency benefits of
> LAyer3, that will never be achieved at Layer2, and Layer2 offers many
> things
> Layer 3 will never deliver.
>
> The point I'm making is, the provider needs to determine the factors
> that
> are most beneficial to them as a provider and their prospective market.
> Those decissions are so much more important than the type of VPN or VLAN
>
> used.  And that is what you are really comparing when comparing two
> providers' VPN Connectivity offerings.
>
> To offer basic VLAN redundancy it requires all paths to be connected at
> layer2 so the Spanning tree protocols talk and work.  But layer2
> redundancy
> protocols can fuinctionally break LAyer3 redundancy (such as OSPF and
> IBGP).
> So its really choosing one or the other.
>
> MPLS solves all this, by adding VPN, Layer2, QOS, preferred path, all in
> a
> single platform of protocols.  Sorta the best of both worlds (LAyer2 and
>
> LAyer3).
> The problem is MPLS is not cost effective to deploy in most cases,
> because
> the MPLS manufacturers charge to high an inflated markup on MPLS enabled
>
> gear. There is no technical reason why MPLS gear needs to cost more. But
> it
> still does.  Its the difference between buying a new $20,000 MPLS router
> and
> a used $500 thirdparty or used non-MPLS router. Sure there are
> exceptions
> all over the place to get a deal, but the whole network needs to talk
> MPLS
> for it to really be beneficial, so if you can't find 100% of it cheap,
> the
> reast you pay top dollar.
>
> Many of the MPLS open source products are developing, but its scary
> endorsing a platform, that is not widely supported yet by several open
> source router systems.
> It locks you into a platform that may or may not ever get complete or
> work
> 100% correctly.  I think OPENSOURCE MPLS is exciting to watch, but its
> not
> quite there yet.
>
> Layer3 VPN is a great way to get your IP space to securly end up from
> one
> side of your network to the other. This is benefical when someone has
> chosen
> a LAyer3 transport design, because itworks voer layer3 :-)
>
> If yo

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Gino Villarini]

Tom,

We are beta testing mikrotik MPLS in our network. So far , not bad at
all ...

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

Ok.

When someone designs an end to end  transport network they are
committing to 
being a layer3 or a layer2 network by design.
Sure you can have bridged components on a routed network, and you can
have 
routed end devices on a bridged network, and you can do it differently
on 
your WAN, MAN, Last mile Relays.  But functionally all-in-all, your city

transport that transposts the VPN is either are layer2 or layer3
network.
This is what defines what VPN alternative you have to offer.

One of the benefits I sell is Office to Office connectivity, BYPASSING
the 
Public Internet, with a controlled On-Net path across my LAyer3 network.

Adding the benefit of one connection to accomplish both Internet and
private 
network functionality.  This is both a QOS and Cost advantage, but all
in 
all, I price it like Internet access, because its functionally routed
like 
Internet traffic using Layer3.

Its important to under stand the difference between Layer2 and Layer3
VLANs. 
LAyer3 generally offers shortest path, via the same rules that apply to
all 
customer's traffic.  Layer2 VLANs offer something different.  Layer2 
generally provides a static path (not necessarilly shortest path)
engineered 
between two points.  When at Layer2, a defines capacity can be
provisioned, 
without concern for distance and quality that might come into play to
effect 
real world throughput if had done at layer3 w/ native re-transmission
and 
Congestion avoidence mechanisms.  There are many efficiency benefits of 
LAyer3, that will never be achieved at Layer2, and Layer2 offers many
things 
Layer 3 will never deliver.

The point I'm making is, the provider needs to determine the factors
that 
are most beneficial to them as a provider and their prospective market. 
Those decissions are so much more important than the type of VPN or VLAN

used.  And that is what you are really comparing when comparing two 
providers' VPN Connectivity offerings.

To offer basic VLAN redundancy it requires all paths to be connected at 
layer2 so the Spanning tree protocols talk and work.  But layer2
redundancy 
protocols can fuinctionally break LAyer3 redundancy (such as OSPF and
IBGP). 
So its really choosing one or the other.

MPLS solves all this, by adding VPN, Layer2, QOS, preferred path, all in
a 
single platform of protocols.  Sorta the best of both worlds (LAyer2 and

LAyer3).
The problem is MPLS is not cost effective to deploy in most cases,
because 
the MPLS manufacturers charge to high an inflated markup on MPLS enabled

gear. There is no technical reason why MPLS gear needs to cost more. But
it 
still does.  Its the difference between buying a new $20,000 MPLS router
and 
a used $500 thirdparty or used non-MPLS router. Sure there are
exceptions 
all over the place to get a deal, but the whole network needs to talk
MPLS 
for it to really be beneficial, so if you can't find 100% of it cheap,
the 
reast you pay top dollar.

Many of the MPLS open source products are developing, but its scary 
endorsing a platform, that is not widely supported yet by several open 
source router systems.
It locks you into a platform that may or may not ever get complete or
work 
100% correctly.  I think OPENSOURCE MPLS is exciting to watch, but its
not 
quite there yet.

Layer3 VPN is a great way to get your IP space to securly end up from
one 
side of your network to the other. This is benefical when someone has
chosen 
a LAyer3 transport design, because itworks voer layer3 :-)

If you chose a LAyer2 VLAN as a replacement for VPN that is also OK, but
its 
a complete change of network design.

We use VLAN all the time, but we route between VLANs, apposed to use the

VLAN to cross our entire network as a VPN.

Personally, if everything cost the same, my whole network would be MPLS 
based, but it doesn't cost the same.  And I can undercut my competitors
on 
price by atleast a factor of 10x, because I'm not using MPLS.  So to do
it 
with MPLS, you really have to be focused on marketing to the segment of
the 
population that udnerstands the difference and will pay for it.

Hope that helps.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Nix Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> We already run some VPNs across our network but I am under the
> impression that VLans may be a little more efficient way of
transporting
&g

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Tom DeReggi]

Ok.

When someone designs an end to end  transport network they are committing to 
being a layer3 or a layer2 network by design.
Sure you can have bridged components on a routed network, and you can have 
routed end devices on a bridged network, and you can do it differently on 
your WAN, MAN, Last mile Relays.  But functionally all-in-all, your city 
transport that transposts the VPN is either are layer2 or layer3 network.
This is what defines what VPN alternative you have to offer.

One of the benefits I sell is Office to Office connectivity, BYPASSING the 
Public Internet, with a controlled On-Net path across my LAyer3 network. 
Adding the benefit of one connection to accomplish both Internet and private 
network functionality.  This is both a QOS and Cost advantage, but all in 
all, I price it like Internet access, because its functionally routed like 
Internet traffic using Layer3.

Its important to under stand the difference between Layer2 and Layer3 VLANs. 
LAyer3 generally offers shortest path, via the same rules that apply to all 
customer's traffic.  Layer2 VLANs offer something different.  Layer2 
generally provides a static path (not necessarilly shortest path) engineered 
between two points.  When at Layer2, a defines capacity can be provisioned, 
without concern for distance and quality that might come into play to effect 
real world throughput if had done at layer3 w/ native re-transmission and 
Congestion avoidence mechanisms.  There are many efficiency benefits of 
LAyer3, that will never be achieved at Layer2, and Layer2 offers many things 
Layer 3 will never deliver.

The point I'm making is, the provider needs to determine the factors that 
are most beneficial to them as a provider and their prospective market. 
Those decissions are so much more important than the type of VPN or VLAN 
used.  And that is what you are really comparing when comparing two 
providers' VPN Connectivity offerings.

To offer basic VLAN redundancy it requires all paths to be connected at 
layer2 so the Spanning tree protocols talk and work.  But layer2 redundancy 
protocols can fuinctionally break LAyer3 redundancy (such as OSPF and IBGP). 
So its really choosing one or the other.

MPLS solves all this, by adding VPN, Layer2, QOS, preferred path, all in a 
single platform of protocols.  Sorta the best of both worlds (LAyer2 and 
LAyer3).
The problem is MPLS is not cost effective to deploy in most cases, because 
the MPLS manufacturers charge to high an inflated markup on MPLS enabled 
gear. There is no technical reason why MPLS gear needs to cost more. But it 
still does.  Its the difference between buying a new $20,000 MPLS router and 
a used $500 thirdparty or used non-MPLS router. Sure there are exceptions 
all over the place to get a deal, but the whole network needs to talk MPLS 
for it to really be beneficial, so if you can't find 100% of it cheap, the 
reast you pay top dollar.

Many of the MPLS open source products are developing, but its scary 
endorsing a platform, that is not widely supported yet by several open 
source router systems.
It locks you into a platform that may or may not ever get complete or work 
100% correctly.  I think OPENSOURCE MPLS is exciting to watch, but its not 
quite there yet.

Layer3 VPN is a great way to get your IP space to securly end up from one 
side of your network to the other. This is benefical when someone has chosen 
a LAyer3 transport design, because itworks voer layer3 :-)

If you chose a LAyer2 VLAN as a replacement for VPN that is also OK, but its 
a complete change of network design.

We use VLAN all the time, but we route between VLANs, apposed to use the 
VLAN to cross our entire network as a VPN.

Personally, if everything cost the same, my whole network would be MPLS 
based, but it doesn't cost the same.  And I can undercut my competitors on 
price by atleast a factor of 10x, because I'm not using MPLS.  So to do it 
with MPLS, you really have to be focused on marketing to the segment of the 
population that udnerstands the difference and will pay for it.

Hope that helps.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Nix Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> We already run some VPNs across our network but I am under the
> impression that VLans may be a little more efficient way of transporting
> data where the points all reside within our network.  Is this true?
>
> __
>
> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
> csweb.net
> (918) 235-0414
> http://www.csweb.net
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 
> ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
> nature. If you

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[charles]

Mpls vlan yes. 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Nix Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:05:07 
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


We already run some VPNs across our network but I am under the
impression that VLans may be a little more efficient way of transporting
data where the points all reside within our network.  Is this true?

__
 
Patrick Nix, Jr.,
csweb.net
(918) 235-0414
http://www.csweb.net
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

This is MPLS's bread and butter.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Nix Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:09 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> Is anyone capitalizing on offering VLan services to companies with
> multiple sites within your network.  We have a couple of opportunities
> to provide this type of service and wondering the best way to approach
> it and charge for it
>
> Thanks
>
> __
>
> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
> csweb.net
> (918) 235-0414
> http://www.csweb.net
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 
> ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
> nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this
e-mail
> and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
> 
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Patrick Nix Jr.]

We already run some VPNs across our network but I am under the
impression that VLans may be a little more efficient way of transporting
data where the points all reside within our network.  Is this true?

__
 
Patrick Nix, Jr.,
csweb.net
(918) 235-0414
http://www.csweb.net
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

This is MPLS's bread and butter.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Nix Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:09 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> Is anyone capitalizing on offering VLan services to companies with
> multiple sites within your network.  We have a couple of opportunities
> to provide this type of service and wondering the best way to approach
> it and charge for it
>
> Thanks
>
> __
>
> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
> csweb.net
> (918) 235-0414
> http://www.csweb.net
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 
> ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
> nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this
e-mail
> and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
> 
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Mike Hammett]

This is MPLS's bread and butter.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Nix Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:09 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points


> Is anyone capitalizing on offering VLan services to companies with
> multiple sites within your network.  We have a couple of opportunities
> to provide this type of service and wondering the best way to approach
> it and charge for it
>
> Thanks
>
> __
>
> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
> csweb.net
> (918) 235-0414
> http://www.csweb.net
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 
> ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
> nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
> and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] VLan or VPN to multiple points

[Dennis Burgess]

We have done this quite a bit for site to site connections.  And Site to 
multi-site connections.  I have done some setups where we have multiple 
internet connections and even have routing change during a failure.  MT 
can be a powerful solution in this arena.  A 433 will do quite a bit for 
most clients, if not, more powerful solutions are out there. 

--
* Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services*
314-735-0270
http://www.linktechs.net 

*/ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training 
/*



Patrick Nix Jr. wrote:
> Is anyone capitalizing on offering VLan services to companies with
> multiple sites within your network.  We have a couple of opportunities
> to provide this type of service and wondering the best way to approach
> it and charge for it
>
> Thanks
>
> __
>  
> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
> csweb.net
> (918) 235-0414
> http://www.csweb.net
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
> 
> ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in
> nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
> and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/