… and use it to run VPLS on top? ;-) -- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) Senior CCIE Instructor / Managing Partner - IPexpert
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Nicola Arnoldi <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
