Agreed, this "other vendor" makes a very good product for it's market niche. I also agree that there is more administrative complexity to layer 3 VPN's than layer 2 using MPLS. However, from a developement standpoint MBGP has been around and supported by Cisco IOS on multiple platforms for awhile. Directed LDP sessions on the other hand is fairly new territory for Cisco. My previous point is that they should complete developement of layer 3 VPN's on the Cat's before developing newer features.
I definitely agree with you that layer 2 VPN's will eventually succeed MBGP for both complexity and scalability reasons. I imagine service providers would want as little to do with customer VPN routes as possible. Internet access could be supported over logical trunked interfaces to the end user or over physically seperate circuits as currently done with layer 3 VPN's... Cheers, -Michael -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of nrf Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749] Surely you will agree that VPN's that require MBGP, which include both RFC2547 and kompella-draft L2VPN's are more complicated than martini-VPN's. I gotta believe that is a factor. Personally, I think RFC2547 will be surpassed by L2VPN's (both kinds), at least in the foreseeable future. The use of VPN's at the present time is as a substitute for old-school ATM or FR, but what better way to do that than to precisely emulate it with an L2VPN? RFC2547 proponents might try to counter by touting the fact that their VPN is L2-independent, but that advantage is largely negated by the extensive interworking L2 capabilities offered in gear made by, um, another vendor. ""Michael Cohen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Gotcha. I always wondered why they developed Martini-draft VPN's on the > Cat6K without having layer 3 MPLS VPN support. It just doesn't quite make > sense to me. I guess it's just marketing hype. Cisco probably wanted to > get there somewhat shortly after Juniper announced availability of layer 2 > VPNs. There's definitely a need for layer 3 PE functionality and I know > several large ISPs that are waiting for this feature on the Cat6K's. I've > heard rumors that it's an ASIC problem and the feature will only be > available with a hardware upgrade. That would not be good news:( > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > nrf > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749] > > > EoMPLS was exactly what I was referring to. The guy asked for PE > capability, but didn't specify what kind of VPN. > > > > ""Michael Cohen"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Are you sure??? Last I checked the Catalyst 6K's only supported EoMPLS > and > > could not perform the function of layer 3 VPN PE. In fact I've been > waiting > > well over a year for PE code on the Cat 6K's and has of last month was > told > > by TAC it's still not available. If it is available what code is it on? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Michael Cohen > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > nrf > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:42 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749] > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > ""flight"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > CAN C6K ACT AS THE PE DEVICES > > > > > > -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38981&t=38749 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
