[135932] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: EPC backhaul networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Sun Jan 30 22:01:09 2011
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Cameron Byrne'" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_W8ybVtetdYaSB=PCpSuDQ2mzv-1BXaZuPAT7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:00:15 -0600
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Write the RFPs asking for L3 -- I don't think they're asking for L3.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: EPC backhaul networks
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of =
Ethernet
>> handoff is with L2 metroE. =A0There is not a feasible L3 service =
offered
>> today.
>
> Ah.
>
> We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different
> problems in different markets.
>
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the
only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that
MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even
think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in
this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use
the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ...
Cameron
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson =A0 =A0email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
