""John Neiberger"" wrote in message ... > bulk of their traffic. When considering a move to VoIP or expanded > video conferencing this can create some traffic shaping issues.
For VoIP, you want to consider a control/data plane that makes this traffic forwarding optimal...the topology is of less concern, no? > traffic shaping. In fact, traffic shaping might not be necessary; > LLQ might be all that is necessary. I'll have to ponder that some > more. You'll probably want outbound queue and drop mechanisms on a class-based model (e.g. CBLLQ with WRED). Shaping and FR Interworking seem to over-complicate what you are trying to do. > Regardless, with a 2764-style VPN like the Qwest PRN we'd end up > with a fully-meshed network where all nodes appear to be one-hop Where did you read that L2VPN's (or L2TPv3 Pseudowires) don't do full-mesh? > on a per-PVC basis. Since we're still considering moving to IP > Telephony and we're expanding our use of video conferencing this You have a lot of options. I recommend Sprint first, then Level-3, then GX. Unless you are already in bed with Qwest or AT&T, they won't give you the time-of-day for support (and you are going to need good support for an offering like this). In particular, I recommend Sprint's PW option (UTI on Cisco GSR), and Level-3's (3)Packet MPLS-VPN option (Martini L2VPN on Laurel Networks). GX has a lot of MPLS-VPN experience with both Cisco GSR and Juniper (but their financials are up in the air and Juniper T-series is a poor platform for low-latency because of the sequence error and other problems - however, knowing GX engineers they probably already worked around these). As a fourth option, I would even look at C&W over Qwest/others - even though they are leaving the US market....because their PW offering (very similar to Sprint's) is also top-notch. Maybe something good will happen to GX and C&W? Any other VPN offering sounds iffy to me....coming from my experience, but you should seek other opinions and do a full analysis for yourself. I had never even heard of RFC 2764 before, and I've never been impressed by the Passport/Accelar/etc. And I'm definitely not a Qwest fan (except maybe old school USWest FR, the !NTERPRISE Networking Services group was probably some of the best carrier services I have ever received in my life -- they were actually proactive about customer outages and would call you within seconds of your service going down). > My feeling after spending a few days reading about this is that > given a moderately large hub-and-spoke network, a L3 VPN might be > of more benefit than a L2 VPN. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion, what did you read/hear? -dre Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73260&t=73255 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
