dre wrote: > > I, personally, do not want to get heavily into it. It's not > mature > technology, and it's all bad, IMO. There are a few solid > technologies...and they are mostly the ones that were > implemented > first. Sure, MPLS-VPN with 2547 is great, but it scales > horribly > and is difficult to manage. It also is dependent on an MPLS > core, > with no route summarization, full IBGP with MP-BGP, and all the > rest of the hooks. It uses two (and if you are using MPLS-TE, > then > three) labels to work, so it's big and kludgy. And you add all > sorts of bugs and overhead to get it working.
I'd be interested in understanding more why and how you think 2547bis does not scale. Are you refering to the number of routes the SP might need to carry or something else? If the former, then I'd agree. In the SP evals I've done of 2547bis solutions, one typically speaks vanilla eBGP between the CE and PE devices. I guess some SP support IGPs between the CE and PE, but that isn't practical from my perspective. At least from what I've seen, there's no need for iBGP or MP-BGP between the CE and PE devices. Certainly not iBGP. Don't understand the comment about route summarization and how it applies here. I'm curious if anyone has talked to their SP and has thought about leveraging MPLS carrier's carrier approach? Not sure how many SPs, if any, support this currently, but seems to have the right scaling properties if you're an ISP. And with the ability for eBGP to carry labels for BGP routes (see neighbor send-label), the CE-PE protocol remains "vanilla" eBGP, meaning there's no need for MP-BGP or LDP. Of course, now you may need to do iBGP or confed eBGP over the MPLS cloud, but that could be interepreted as a benefit. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73074&t=73048 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
