At 3:29 AM -0500 3/22/02, Tom Scott wrote:
>Kent, Irwin,
>
>This is an interesting exchange of perspectives. Could you
>or someone else comment on GMPLS?
GMPLS does many of the things you are describing. It "generalizes"
MPLS setup beyond the current packet/frame oriented paths to paths
that do
Kent, Irwin,
This is an interesting exchange of perspectives. Could you
or someone else comment on GMPLS? How does it factor into
the comparison of MPLS vs. FR? Is there anything about the
combination of MPLS / GMPLS that gives it an advantage over
FR?
Another issue I'd like to understand in thi
Irwin,
""Irwin Lazar"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John,
>
> I think you brought an interesting topic.
>
> With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering
me
> for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an
> an
But honestly now, how many enterprises really need their frame-relay
circuits configured for full-mesh? Almost none.
And in particular, if you really want to talk about offering FR circuits
over MPLS, why mess around with RFC2547 (L3VPN's)? You talk about looking at
and routing customer's layer-
John,
What kind of circuits do you have today. The cool thing about MPLS is that
lets say your have a lot of Frame-Relay circuits. As a service provider, I
could take those FR circuits in and give you a full-mesh. How, by using
MPLS VPNs. So what I do now is pay attention to your ip routing,
John,
I think you brought an interesting topic.
With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering me
for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an
any-to-any solution? Less than 0.5% is my guess. Most of the enterprise
client/server applications fit
Interesting, let me also bring few things up here, not that
I have much experience in MPLS/VPN but who does ? :-)
I suppose one of the problems with this particular service is that
not all SP's or Enterprises fully understand the potential, or technology
in general. First, SP's might not be able
To make things even more interesting...
While discussing this with a few different vendors I decided
that this particular solution is smoke-and-mirrors, at least in
our area. We'd have to buy new point-to-point circuits that
all point to a _single_ POP.
MPLS isn't even needed in this case be
John,
I think you brought an interesting topic.
With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering me
for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an
any-to-any solution? Less than 0.5% is my guess. Most of the enterprise
client/server applications fit
The latter option is what it sounds like they're offering. My
understanding is that our routers would still need to run a routing
protocol to advertise local rotues to the SP, but they'd only actually
use a default route pointing back to the SP.
According to them--or at least the sales drone I w
This really depends on whether or not they are pitching a Layer 2 VPN
service or a Layer 3 VPN service. With the former, there shouldn't be much
of any reconfig at your end as the transport mechanism with the SP will
remain transparent to you. With the latter, you'd would transition much of
I see your point on security, but I don't completely agree. Your current
Frame Relay network is only as secure as your carrier. If someone at your
carrier maps a PVC between you and company X, real traffic can flow
(assuming your router picks it up and places on the physical interface,
which it li
Okay, I just got off the phone with a vendor and I have a better handle
on what they're actually proposing. Here's the scoop:
They offer a couple of different variations of the MPLS solution. The
first solution requires that we readdress our entire network to match
their addressing scheme. Thi
i was pitched this very thing recently by wcom and qwest.. basically it is
only as secure as your carriers.. if some "f*cks up" and imports something
into your VRF, either a default, another vpn, or whatever you security
is finished.. plug banks are supposed to encrypt over IPSEC, so why bother
ru
14 matches
Mail list logo
