At 07:58 PM 7/21/2003 +0000, John Neiberger wrote: >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.
This sounds exactly like a 2547bis based IP VPN. >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. Keep in mind that this solution involves the provider managing aspects of your WAN routing which involves a different level of attention from them then you would see with a traditional layer two network. Usually, this type of service commands a premium, but the market tends to dictate pricing in many areas (depending upon where you are located). Pete >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=72726&t=72704 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
