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" <wireless@wispa.org> 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 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" <wireless@wispa.org> > 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/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.4/1616 - Release Date: 8/16/2008 > 5:12 PM > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
