Irwin,
""Irwin Lazar"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > John, > > I think you brought an interesting topic. > > With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering me > for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an > any-to-any solution? Less than 0.5% is my guess. Most of the enterprise > client/server applications fit into the hub-spoke topology pretty well, > really have no reasons to get direct connections among their branches. > > Theoretically, MPLS should give the service providers the ability to provide > more scalable and cheaper fully meshed VPN solution, as the SPs do not have > to manage those hundreds of thousands PVCs, ect. From the enterprises' > perspective, if this gives them a reliable and affordable alternative to the > traditional hub-spoke frame relay network, it sounds attractive, but seems > to me all the current implementations are even more expensive, not to > mention their reliability probably is no where near the legacy frame > network, at least not for a while. > > The vendors want to sell their MPLS VPN solutions to SPs, the SPs who built > the network want to sell it enterprises , but my guess is that 99% > enterprises will not buy it, not till... > > My .02 > > Kent > > ------------ > True for today - looking forward VoIP, Collaborate Apps, and Desktop video > conferencing will shift traffic flows and create more need for more > any-to-any communication. My original point was despite the growing requirement of above applications, the enterprises should be able to get by with the legacy frame realy network. An enterprise, having a pretty good size of network, with things like VoIP and Desktop video conferencing on their mind, should break their network into a topology similar to a SP network. Several regional hub sites and a backbone structure among those hubs. To some extend, this may be even better, as you will have a control of where your hubs will be. Say you have offices in most of the level 2 or level 3 cities in the east coast, it makes sense for you to setup your hubs at NYC, D.C. and Atlanta. This may exactlly how your SP's topology turn up. If you happen to have an office in LA, the SP you use in the east, may not be able to provide service in the west coast. Of course, all this based on the fact that some SPs are offering MPLS at much higher cost than their frame relay service. Otherwise it won't hurt to have a full meshed network without going through all this engineering pains. MPLS should make it possible for the SPs to provide a full meshed QoS capable network at lower price compared to traditional frame relay, if not, it makes no sense to me. I guess this must be a marketing thing from the SPs sales The other driver for L3-VPNs is IP QoS support > from the Service Provider. > I am not sure I understand this, why the same bits do not work when they are in the ip header but start working after we copy them into EXP? Thanks Kent Yu > I've worked with a few customers to help them evaluate MPLS-VPN services, > the general consensus is that unless you need a partial or full mesh, or > IP-QoS within the SP network, traditional Frame Relay in a hub-and-spoke > design is still the better alternative. YMMV. > > Irwin > > ------ > Irwin Lazar > Senior Consultant and Practice Manager, Burton Group > www.burtongroup.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Office: 703-742-9659 > Cell: 703-402-4119 > "DrivingNetworkEvolution" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39126&t=36670 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
