On Wednesday 16 July 2008 21:19:47 Abhi wrote: > And how well do L2 VPN and L2 Ciruit scale up in the > SP environment and which are more preferred ones for > deploying these services.
This is likely to start a heated debate, but I guess scaling of L2VPN's comes down to the signaling + discovery mechanisms in play (and perhaps, which "Kompella" you prefer as in the case for VPLS). Someone chime in in case I over-simplify the issue: Cisco primarily went for Martini L2VPN's based on targeted LDP sessions to signal l2circuits between PE routers. Juniper support this also. Juniper, on the other hand, felt that BGP should be used to, both, signal and autodiscover L2VPN's, including VPLS. Later, Cisco merged both schools of thought and, through the Rosen draft, support BGP Autodiscovery but maintain LDP signaling. Personally, I'm for the Juniper proposal. It makes sense to me, but like I said, this could get religious :-). There is another scaling technique (also supported by Cisco) called H-VPLS (Hierarchical VPLS), in which the concept of u-PE's (user-facing PE routers) and n-PE's (network-facing PE routers) are used to partition the VPLS domain into smaller, more manageable chunks that need to hold only a subset of LDP forwarding information, rather than that of the whole network. Choose your poison :-). Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
