a routed VPLS? do they have that service? this, of course, would completely change your architecture from L3 to L2, but on top of the VPLS you could set up your L3 HnS routed topology using your preferred IGP (I'd recommend IBGP with RR because of the scale)
just my two cents... Nicola On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Mohammad Moghaddas <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Adam, > > thanks for your reply. > Unfortunately this is the only SP which is able to provide MPLS-VPN service > on those locations. > You are right, one of the issues on tunnels is exactly MTU (and TCP MSS) > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Adam Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Mohammad, > > > > I guess if you aren't in a position to get your SP's account manager to > > want to keep a ~300 site customer happy and you cant get an alternate > > provider, perhaps if you can handle the MTU impact of the additional > > tunnels, could you look at tunnelling over the SP network building a hub > > and spoke topology using something like DMVPN? It's not really covered > in > > the R&S blueprint and falls under the Security banner if you want to read > > up on it. > > > > Cheers, > > Adam > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Mohammad Moghaddas < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi. > >> > >> We have 290 sites over an MPLS cloud having IP reach-ability to each > >> other. > >> The topology is as below: > >> > >> different VRFs<--site1--PE1---"P routers" ---PE2---site2-->different > VRFs > >> > >> So the provider has established the connectivity between all sites. > >> > >> As the topology, we have different networks on each site, and each > network > >> requires isolated routing-table and connectivity to the same VRF on the > >> other sites. > >> Unfortunately the provider's policies doe not allow having sub-if to PEs > >> and having eBGP to PE and exchange our VRFs' labels and the routing > table. > >> I mean that they just only provide the base connectivity to other sites > >> without any isolation between our local VRFs. > >> I should point that our topology is Hub'n'Spoke. So I imagined > >> implementing > >> one tunnel from each site for each VRF to the hub. I know that this not > an > >> efficient way. > >> > >> So, what's your opinion? > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> M. Moghaddas > >> _______________________________________________ > >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > please > >> visit www.ipexpert.com > >> > >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com > >> > >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
