On Wednesday 02 December 2009 03:25:50 am harbor235 wrote: > Is anyone out there utilizing a collapsed P/PE in thier > MPLS networks?
We have a number of these, particularly in smaller PoP's. We have designated specific key locations in the business district or country as major core PoP's. These have P routers as well as some others to support customers and production services. In smaller PoP's, we deploy collapsed P/PE boxes that haul back to our P routers. It's a design that works well, doesn't break the bank, and can easily be upgraded if a P function needs to be separated from the PE function, in the future. > Do you regret deploying the architecture Nope! > and what are the problem areas if any? None, it just works. Again, the architecture is such that the functions can be separated at any time, if needed. > I assume it's a dollar issue... Yes. No use having a CRS-1 next to an ASR1002 in a small PoP just to serve customers there, when you can get an ASR1006 and use it for both functions, if you don't need to push more than 20Gbps of aggregated capacity :-). > and as long as you have > minimal PE to CE aggregation > this is the way to go. Like Pshem, all our P/PE-based PoP's aggregate customers on regular Ethernet switches purely forwarding on Layer 2 Ethernet alone. 802.1Q trunks + LACP give you uplink capacity and redundancy. You can take this one step further and include aggregation in your P/PE setup, but this means a slightly bigger box, which may or may not make sense, e.g., Juniper's new MX80 vs. Cisco's 7604 vs. Brocade's NetIron CES/CER 2000, depending on the depth of your pockets and how important the PoP is. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
