Re: Provider VPN Caveats [7:73207]
One thing that gets missed in the L2VPN versus L3VPN issue, with provider-provisioned LANs, is the people aspect both for the provider and customer. If you provision a L2VPN, it's a familiar interface to the customer. It's also much more familiar to telco/TDM technicians. I've seen market estimates that of telco staff, perhaps 10% would really be able to support L3VPN without extensive training. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73309&t=73207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Provider VPN Caveats [7:73207]
At 9:54 PM + 7/29/03, " Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter " wrote: > > > >> BTW, I think it was dre who suggested I read the RFCs, which I've started >to >> do, and suggested I check out the www.lightreading.com website. That site >is >> great! I did do a search on Kompella vs. Kompella. I feel that Kompella >has >> some good points, but so does Kompella. ;-) I guess the real questions >is >> which Kompella is most compelling? Before burning out on this question, try a Martini. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73248&t=73207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Provider VPN Caveats [7:73207]
John Neiberger wrote: > I've been researching different types of service provider VPNs in general > and Qwest's PRN, in particular. From what I can gather their PRN is a > 2764-based VPN offering using IPSec tunneling. I've run into two fairly > obvious caveats already and I'm wondering what other caveats might await > that aren't so obvious. > > First, and most obvious, is that without the use of GRE or something similar > we won't get multiprotocol capability. Second, and a little less obvious > until you think about it, is that we would lose multicasting capabilities > without jumping through some GRE hoops. > > To those of you more familiar with this sort of thing, are there any other > operational caveats like these that I'd need to be aware of? > > BTW, I think it was dre who suggested I read the RFCs, which I've started to > do, and suggested I check out the www.lightreading.com website. That site is > great! I did do a search on Kompella vs. Kompella. I feel that Kompella has > some good points, but so does Kompella. ;-) I guess the real questions is > which Kompella is most compelling? > > I didn't realize that there were so many competing VPN groups and > technologies. At this rate, by the time we agree on any standard methods all > of the technologies will be obsolete! test Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73237&t=73207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Provider VPN Caveats [7:73207]
""John Neiberger"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I've been researching different types of service provider VPNs in general > and Qwest's PRN, in particular. From what I can gather their PRN is a > 2764-based VPN offering using IPSec tunneling. I've run into two fairly > obvious caveats already and I'm wondering what other caveats might await > that aren't so obvious. > > First, and most obvious, is that without the use of GRE or something similar > we won't get multiprotocol capability. Second, and a little less obvious > until you think about it, is that we would lose multicasting capabilities > without jumping through some GRE hoops. > > To those of you more familiar with this sort of thing, are there any other > operational caveats like these that I'd need to be aware of? > > BTW, I think it was dre who suggested I read the RFCs, which I've started to > do, and suggested I check out the www.lightreading.com website. That site is > great! I did do a search on Kompella vs. Kompella. I feel that Kompella has > some good points, but so does Kompella. ;-) I guess the real questions is > which Kompella is most compelling? > > I didn't realize that there were so many competing VPN groups and > technologies. At this rate, by the time we agree on any standard methods all > of the technologies will be obsolete! as the mainframe guys used to say, we love standards. that's why we have so many of them! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73212&t=73207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Provider VPN Caveats [7:73207]
I've been researching different types of service provider VPNs in general and Qwest's PRN, in particular. From what I can gather their PRN is a 2764-based VPN offering using IPSec tunneling. I've run into two fairly obvious caveats already and I'm wondering what other caveats might await that aren't so obvious. First, and most obvious, is that without the use of GRE or something similar we won't get multiprotocol capability. Second, and a little less obvious until you think about it, is that we would lose multicasting capabilities without jumping through some GRE hoops. To those of you more familiar with this sort of thing, are there any other operational caveats like these that I'd need to be aware of? BTW, I think it was dre who suggested I read the RFCs, which I've started to do, and suggested I check out the www.lightreading.com website. That site is great! I did do a search on Kompella vs. Kompella. I feel that Kompella has some good points, but so does Kompella. ;-) I guess the real questions is which Kompella is most compelling? I didn't realize that there were so many competing VPN groups and technologies. At this rate, by the time we agree on any standard methods all of the technologies will be obsolete! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73207&t=73207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
