RE: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
Qwest PRN is a fully mesh IPSec (DES/3DES)(tunnel mode) based on Nortel Shasta platform with classfull firewall similar to Checkpoint Firewall. It can provide the QOS features such as DiffServ, Traffic Shaping, Policing, etc...) Qwest has provided Private Routed Network (PRN) Solution since December, 2000. The platform is currently very stable. On the trunk side (backbone), the routing protocol is BGP, IS-IS and OSPF On the customer sides, the routing protocol is static, OSPF. BGP will be available in the future. The customer circuit can be from 64K to OC-3. MLPPP is also available. If your corporate has about thousand sites (T1 and above) all around the world (ASIA, Europe, North America) and your requirements are fully mesh, 3DES IPSec Tunnel, OSPF routing, Classfull Firewall, QOS, remote access VPN (Contivity - 3DES IPSec transport mode). Qwest is the only Service Provider that currently offers these services. C.Q.Nguyen Former Qwest VPN Employee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter van Oene Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704] At 07:58 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: I think this actually is an MPLS VPN, of sorts. It's been fairly hard for me to get the nitty gritty details. As I see it, it's a layer 3 MPLS vpn with OSPF as our 'interface' to their network but I may be wrong about that. This sounds exactly like a 2547bis based IP VPN. As someone else just mentioned, this service is expensive compared to frame relay. In fact, at the moment it's about twice the monthly cost, but we're quickly growing to a point where the frame network is not going to support our goals. This solution looks pretty slick, I must admit. Keep in mind that this solution involves the provider managing aspects of your WAN routing which involves a different level of attention from them then you would see with a traditional layer two network. Usually, this type of service commands a premium, but the market tends to dictate pricing in many areas (depending upon where you are located). Pete John Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter 7/21/03 1:50:51 PM so, John, whatever happened to the MPLS network they were trying to sell you a while back? what advantage does PRN have vis a vis MPLS such that Quest is no longer trying to convince you to buy it? inquiring minds need to know :- John Neiberger wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72730t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Of course, it's not necessary to answer every question. I'm just doing some research on their solution and thought I'd check around here for references. Thanks, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72704t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Of course, it's not necessary to answer every question. I'm just doing some research on their solution and thought I'd check around here for references. Thanks, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72708t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Of course, it's not necessary to answer every question. I'm just doing some research on their solution and thought I'd check around here for references. Thanks, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72709t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72710t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
so, John, whatever happened to the MPLS network they were trying to sell you a while back? what advantage does PRN have vis a vis MPLS such that Quest is no longer trying to convince you to buy it? inquiring minds need to know :- John Neiberger wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72713t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
I think this actually is an MPLS VPN, of sorts. It's been fairly hard for me to get the nitty gritty details. As I see it, it's a layer 3 MPLS vpn with OSPF as our 'interface' to their network but I may be wrong about that. As someone else just mentioned, this service is expensive compared to frame relay. In fact, at the moment it's about twice the monthly cost, but we're quickly growing to a point where the frame network is not going to support our goals. This solution looks pretty slick, I must admit. John Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter 7/21/03 1:50:51 PM so, John, whatever happened to the MPLS network they were trying to sell you a while back? what advantage does PRN have vis a vis MPLS such that Quest is no longer trying to convince you to buy it? inquiring minds need to know :- John Neiberger wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72718t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
I looked at Qwests VPN stuff a while back which I think is at least similar in overall design to PRN. Though there was benefit in this type of solution over frame relay from a technical standpoint, there was no cost benefit versus converting my frame network to point-to-point lines via local carrier and maintaining control over my own network. Their stuff at the time was ungodly expensive. I do have a Qwest Internet T1 that has been flawless and their support is first rate. Its been down twice. The first time they had it fixed w/i 10 minutes of my call. The second time was because we lost main power to the building and it knocked out our perimeter router. Qwest took the initiative, and called me wondering why it was down about 3 hours after it went down. Verizon won't even guarantee a callback w/i 3 hours much less initiate the investigation. That said, we'll be moving it to an SBC internet line in the near future due to the high MRC on the Qwest line. -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704] Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72716t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
Peter van Oene 7/21/03 3:26:30 PM Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. Cool. I thought it was a IP VPN based network, but wasn't completely sure. You might consider BGP at the hub site just to isolate your hub. If they wack up their PE box and give you way to many routes, it might become painful. Usually I recommend the provider asked the customer to run BGP or RIP vs OSPF for this reason, but it makes sense from the customers perspective as well. This also mitigates some messy backdoor scenarios that come up with spokes gain spoke to spoke or non VPN spoke to hub connections. They mentioned that iBGP was an option but given our network design this would complicate matters, at least as I understand it. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. Spoke wise, can you not pre-provision some aggregate blocks to the spokes inline with growth expectations? This would ease your provisioning pain. I'd ask for portal capability for this as well (spoke static route adds). They likely don't have it, but it isn't that hard to do and would likely be consistent with stuff they may already be considering. In other words, they won't likely be able to do it, but you might help them make it happen sooner than later. To some extent we can preprovision, especially if we stick to our addressing scheme! Portal capability would be nice. I'll have to ask them about that. Right now, route adds require a telephone call, or possibly an email. If I had some web-based control, for example, I'd be quite thrilled. I should note that I'm not directly familiar with their offering. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. I take it sharing routing information wasn't a big concern for your company? It seems to be for some, but I never saw the risk myself. It was a concern for a moment, but upon further reflection we decided that we're not really any worse off than we are right now. We're already at the mercy of the provider, and if they have people internally who are willing to attempt to gain useful information from our network connections then we're in trouble already. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72721t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
John Neiberger wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this actually is an MPLS VPN, of sorts. It's been fairly hard for me to get the nitty gritty details. As I see it, it's a layer 3 MPLS vpn with OSPF as our 'interface' to their network but I may be wrong about that. As someone else just mentioned, this service is expensive compared to frame relay. In fact, at the moment it's about twice the monthly cost, but we're quickly growing to a point where the frame network is not going to support our goals. This solution looks pretty slick, I must admit. you shopped this to WorldCom or ATT? Those two bad boys have been pretty agressive in the WAN market, at least in these parts. You might be able to get some decent ATM and FRATM setups, in which case Qwest might revisit their pricing. ;- John Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter 7/21/03 1:50:51 PM so, John, whatever happened to the MPLS network they were trying to sell you a while back? what advantage does PRN have vis a vis MPLS such that Quest is no longer trying to convince you to buy it? inquiring minds need to know :- John Neiberger wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72723t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Anyone using Qwest PRN ? [7:72704]
At 07:58 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: I think this actually is an MPLS VPN, of sorts. It's been fairly hard for me to get the nitty gritty details. As I see it, it's a layer 3 MPLS vpn with OSPF as our 'interface' to their network but I may be wrong about that. This sounds exactly like a 2547bis based IP VPN. As someone else just mentioned, this service is expensive compared to frame relay. In fact, at the moment it's about twice the monthly cost, but we're quickly growing to a point where the frame network is not going to support our goals. This solution looks pretty slick, I must admit. Keep in mind that this solution involves the provider managing aspects of your WAN routing which involves a different level of attention from them then you would see with a traditional layer two network. Usually, this type of service commands a premium, but the market tends to dictate pricing in many areas (depending upon where you are located). Pete John Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter 7/21/03 1:50:51 PM so, John, whatever happened to the MPLS network they were trying to sell you a while back? what advantage does PRN have vis a vis MPLS such that Quest is no longer trying to convince you to buy it? inquiring minds need to know :- John Neiberger wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter van Oene wrote: At 04:31 PM 7/21/2003 +, John Neiberger wrote: Are any of you using Qwest PRN? If so, I have a few questions for you: 1. How do you like it so far? 2. Did you migrate from something else? If so, how did the migration go? 3. Any 'gotchas' that you learned later that you wish you'd learned sooner? 4. How does the service compare to what you were using before? 5. How many sites do you have? Is this solution scaling well for you? Hey John, What is PRN? Private routed network? Can't seem to find much about it in my brief googling. Oops. Accidentally hit post before adding any content. ;-) Yes, it stands for Private Routed Network. It's a very interesting solution. Our hub sites would participate in OSPF with their network, while our spoke sites would use static routing. The PRN would have static routes pointing to our spoke sites and those statics would be redistributed into OSPF. The biggest downside to this is that we'd have to contact Qwest each time we added a new subnet at a branch, but I suppose that just means we'd need to plan ahead better. This solution buys us a few things over our current frame relay network. Each site has a full pipe into the PRN instead of multiple PVCs sharing a single link, and we don't have to deal with CIR. From the perspective of our routers each site is one hop away from any other site. These combination of these features will allow us to proceed with VoIP throughout our network, which is not feasible with the current frame relay network. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72726t=72704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
