Also worth looking at is the hardware component: what will run on
the hardware you've already got (if anything)? IF you already
have most or all of the hardware pieces to implement Cisco's
version, then Cisco's probably makes sense. IF you already have
the requisite Nortel gear (Passports?),
Thanks Anlee.
I used to work for GTL a while back and they told us that passport was at
heart running on FR. When i say passport, i refer to 6480/7480 etc., not
8600, which most people, including me still refer to as Accelar.
I agree with u on the backplane statement though. Everything happens
At 5:55 AM + 7/27/03, Nakul Malik wrote:
Thanks Anlee.
I used to work for GTL a while back and they told us that passport was at
heart running on FR. When i say passport, i refer to 6480/7480 etc., not
8600, which most people, including me still refer to as Accelar.
I agree with u on the
passport at heart an ATM switch/
Passport is FR.
-Nakul
annlee wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Neiberger wrote:
I'm just now digging deeper into current VPN technologies since I'm
researching Qwest's PRN service. I'm awaiting a definitive answer from
them
but it
Nakul Malik wrote:
passport at heart an ATM switch/
Passport is FR.
-Nakul
annlee wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Neiberger wrote:
I'm just now digging deeper into current VPN technologies since I'm
researching Qwest's PRN service. I'm awaiting a definitive
At 2:22 PM + 7/26/03, Nakul Malik wrote:
passport at heart an ATM switch/
Passport is FR.
-Nakul
The Passport is internally a cell switch, onto which Nortel has
overlaid a great many other features. Before I went to work for
Nortel, I consulted on the BGP implementation, and
are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print
or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Nakul Malik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 10:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC 2547 vs. RFC 2764 VPNs
dre wrote:
I, personally, do not want to get heavily into it. It's not
mature
technology, and it's all bad, IMO. There are a few solid
technologies...and they are mostly the ones that were
implemented
first. Sure, MPLS-VPN with 2547 is great, but it scales
horribly
and is difficult to
I'm curious if anyone has talked to their SP and has thought about
leveraging MPLS carrier's carrier approach? Not sure how many
SPs, if any, support this currently, but seems to have the
right scaling properties if you're an ISP. And with the ability
for eBGP to carry labels for BGP routes
I'm just now digging deeper into current VPN technologies since I'm
researching Qwest's PRN service. I'm awaiting a definitive answer from them
but it appears that their PRN service is 2764-based, which apparently means
it does not use MPLS like 2547-based VPNs. I'm curious about the
implications
John Neiberger wrote in message ...
I'm just now digging deeper into current VPN technologies since
I'm researching Qwest's PRN service. I'm awaiting a definitive
answer from them but it appears that their PRN service is 2764-based,
which apparently means it does not use MPLS like 2547-based
hey, John, I understand there is an update to RFC 2549, due out Real Soon
Now, which might help you out here.
John Neiberger wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm just now digging deeper into current VPN technologies since I'm
researching Qwest's PRN service. I'm awaiting a definitive
John Neiberger wrote:
I'm just now digging deeper into current VPN technologies since I'm
researching Qwest's PRN service. I'm awaiting a definitive answer from them
but it appears that their PRN service is 2764-based, which apparently means
it does not use MPLS like 2547-based VPNs. I'm
13 matches
Mail list logo
