[132088] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Recent operational experience choosing between PBB-TE, MEF9+14,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Nov 13 17:38:53 2010
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:08:43 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Francois Menard <francois@menards.ca>
In-Reply-To: <878852AD-8219-4356-859C-52327A82E079@menards.ca>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:30:19 -0500
Francois Menard <francois@menards.ca> wrote:
> I'm embarking on a new project which involves a large scale MAN network where ultimately, the objective is to carry QinQ, while at the same time delivering services over IPv6.
>
> The objective is to support jumbo frames on all interfaces, at least to carry QinQ standard-size ethernet frames, but ideally as large as possible
>
> There seem to be 4 approaches to do this.
>
> a) The IEEE PBB-TE approach - but little implementations.
> b) The MEF9+14 approach, mature, but manual provisioning
> c) The VPLS approach, concerns with too much manual provisioning.
> d) The T-MPLS approach, concerns with maturity
>
> The objective is to support the functionality not only in the CORE, but also on cost effective multi-tenant & redundant customer CPEs.
>
> I have not seen a, or b or d supported in a low-cost customer CPE.
>
> I am currently favouring c, for reasons of maturity and wide implementation, but may be missing on recent progresses in the b) land.
>
> Any thoughts ?
>
> Any published IETF material on the topic ?
>
I'd avoid T-MPLS -
"Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful"
http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5704
Regards,
Mark.
