>Ready of not, like it or not, it appears to me that MPLS is the Next Big >Thing in networking. I'm starting to hear customers ask about it - large >enterprise customer to be sure. > >Why? "Because it's more secure, and I don't want to have to depend on access >lists on my routers for security"
MPLS adds no benefit for security, and also no longer offers any particular advantage in forwarding speed. It does have benefits, which include traffic engineering and additional fast restoration capabilities (e.g., comparable to SONET). In its newer instantiation as Generalized MPLS (GMPLS), it also offers a much cleaner control interface to pure optical and other transmission systems. But the absolutely key thing for people to understand is that MPLS does not replace IP, but provides additional capabilities to supplement some things IP does. Another thing to remember is it's not just IP and MPLS forwarding, but also the "glue" between them of path setup. There is increased interest in carrier-grade IPsec, possibly in conjunction with MPLS, for more secure applications. Not ready for prime time. > >As I roll my eyes. > >Guess I will just never be good at sales. > >Chuck > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Howard C. Berkowitz >Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 7:49 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968] > > >>RR's are normally used in small to medium sized implementations. >>Confederations are normally used in large implementations. I imagine on >the >>lab they'll give some clue as to which one is required. >> >>The k1d > >It's not a matter of size; it's a matter of how much policy control >you need. Most very large ISPs, with a homogeneous backbone design, >use RRs. There is a lot of discussion of using BGP-free MPLS cores >with RRs at the edge. > >> >> >> >>""Kane, Christopher A."" wrote in message >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>> I'm currently tearing apart BGP as part of my IE studies. It's not too >bad >>> since I come from a Network Service Provider background. But, I have run >>> into a conflict in regards to RRs vs. Confeds. I probably don't need to >>> straighten this out for the Written but when it comes to the lab I'd >like >>to >>> know which route to go down. I have no idea how the lab poses it's >>topology >>> but if given the requirement to configure a simulated "large" network >and >>> then having to choose whether to implement RRs or Confeds I wonder which >>one >>> Cisco prefers. I'm assuming that as part of the lab, the idea is to >create >>> solutions that work and in doing so, solutions that are as simple as >>> possible and as short as possible. >>> >>> I'd like to hear comments about the pros and cons of each option in >>regards >>> to how Cisco might prefer to see implementation. Meanwhile, I'm going to >>> review all available case studies on CCO. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29983&t=29968 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
