At 1:46 PM +0000 7/23/02, Peter van Oene wrote: >Before going down this road, I tend to wonder what drives people this >direction. Exactly what is it about poorly scaling, flat networks that >turn people on?
My impression is that it is an unholy alliance of traditional telcos and traditional vendors to traditional telcos, coupled with FUD/cluelessness with certain enterprises who think L2 is automatically configurable and infinitely scalable. I have seen estimates from telcos that without massive retraining, they think they can only support 10% L3, 90% L2 with their existing provisioning and support personnel. >Last I checked, IP did a pretty decent job of providing a >robust means of interconnection between remote sites. To me, its LANE all >over again, ie lets take a scalable, robust, intelligent technology and try >and bridge with it. As far as building MANs with Spanning Tree as your >control protocol, I might suggest that it will give you a real headache >from a scaling and provisioning standpoint. You might want to find someone >who worked at Yipes to give you some ideas. > >As far as building MPLS based bridging networks I would suggest that in >many cases, the technology is pretty fresh at this point. The ppvpn group >in the ietf and the vendor community (same thing?) are still considering a >number of candidate solutions. However, at this point you should be able >to find vendors capable of providing point to point topologies with various >degrees of scaling properties. As well, I have heard that Riverstone may >have a point to multipoint (ie capable of replicating one packet across a >series of point to point LSP's) solution, but I have not researched it. In >the future, a true VPLS solution should shake out that provides multi >vendor compatible, 802.1d like bridging (ie mac learning with some type of >listen/learn/forward STP like loop prevention). Again though, I tend to >ask myself, is this really what we want to do with our nifty IP networks. > >I will say that I am fully behind replacing legacy frame/atm vpn networks >with IP/MPLS networks in order to reduce the number of networks supported >by a single provider. There are definite efficiencies to be gained here. > >Most access gear at this point supports some type of MPLS however. What >type of gear are you using currently that makes it prohibitively expensive >to upgrade at this point? > > > > > >At 08:12 PM 7/21/2002 +0000, bbfaye wrote: >>we are handling a case of a MAN project now. >>We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means we >>have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). >>Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the >>aggressive >>nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the >>disadvantage. >>Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn >in >>the man? >>thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49443&t=49346 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
