Plus one for MPLS/VPLS. Gives you a lot more control over what goes where.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 8:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Routed vs bridge with a twist If you already have a routed core network, especially if you have OSPF rings (like we do), I figure it'd make more sense to put MPLS on top. I haven't done it yet because we haven't needed to do anything like customer tunnels for multi-site interconnects, but we're getting there. On 8/6/2015 4:32 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote: I'm running Mikrotik, all routed, got a different subnet for each tower, got a different subnet between each tower, public IP's routed to the customers, all the fun stuff. I'm thinking of restructuring my network so the entire backbone is one big L2 network. If I plug into the switch at the tower at tower 5 it will be no different than tower 1 or 7. Each AP would still have it's own subnet, but the backside of each AP would be on the same L2 as the rest. I'm planning on looping it all the way around and building redundancy into the network, haven't quite decided how I'm going to do that yet, might use STP, that is a little ways down the road. I'll have another fiber feed in case the main goes down and I'd like to have a level of redundancy should a tower go out, I'll only lose the one rather than the ones behind it as well. I've fried my brain today, so if I'm sounding half crazy, just tell me to take the rest of the day off... I'm thinking it might be best to have a few large L2 segments to the backbone, maybe three or four, rather than one big L2 and much simpler than 12+ subnets from tower to tower. Input is appreciated.
