If the reason for L2 transport is purely customer driven and purely ptp, then a L2 VPN solution would be better than directly transporting the frames. If you don't have to bridge it directly, don't. Keep the core at layer 3 wherever possible. L2 can be very hard to debug when there are issues.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 06:58:51PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 20/Oct/16 18:45, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > > > > Sure - but it's probably worth revisiting the origins of those > > requirements, and whether there are better alternatives. > > Indeed. > > What we've seen is customers who prefer to manage their own IP layer, > and just need transport. These types of customers tend to be split > between EoDWDM and EoMPLS preferences. Whatever the case, their primary > requirement is control of their IP domain. > > What we're not seeing anymore is l3vpn requirements, particularly on the > back of on-premise IT infrastructure moving into the cloud. We see this > driving a lot of regular IP growth. > > Mark. --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/