""John Neiberger"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I think this actually is an MPLS VPN, of sorts. It's been fairly hard for me > to get the nitty gritty details. As I see it, it's a layer 3 MPLS vpn with > OSPF as our 'interface' to their network but I may be wrong about that. > > As someone else just mentioned, this service is expensive compared to frame > relay. In fact, at the moment it's about twice the monthly cost, but we're > quickly growing to a point where the frame network is not going to support > our goals. This solution looks pretty slick, I must admit.
you shopped this to WorldCom or AT&T? Those two bad boys have been pretty agressive in the WAN market, at least in these parts. You might be able to get some decent ATM and FRATM setups, in which case Qwest might revisit their pricing. ;-> > > John > > >>> Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter 7/21/03 1:50:51 > PM >>> > so, John, whatever happened to the MPLS network they were trying to sell > you > a while back? what advantage does PRN have vis a vis MPLS such that Quest > is > no longer trying to convince you to buy it? > > inquiring minds need to know :-> > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Peter van Oene wrote: > > > > > > At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +0000, John Neiberger wrote: > > > >Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions > > > for you: > > > > > > > >1. How do you like it so far? > > > >2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the > > > migration go? > > > >3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd > > > learned sooner? > > > >4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? > > > >5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well > > > for you? > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much > > > about it in my > > > brief googling. > > > > > > > Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) > > > > Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting > solution. > > Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our > spoke > > sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing > to > > our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. > > > > The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time > we > > added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need > to > > plan ahead better. > > > > This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. > > Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a > > single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of > our > > routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination > of > > these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, > > which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. > > > > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72723&t=72704 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
