[177440] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Bedard)
Mon Jan 19 21:37:45 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:37:35 -0500
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150117191504.GA17079@pob.ytti.fi>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 1/17/15, 7:15 PM, "Saku Ytti" <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
>On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian =C4=8Eurkovi=C4=8D wrote:
>
>> Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL=20
>>setup
>> is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path=20
>> IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packets over any reasonable topology=20
>> out of the box (without the burden and cost implications of VPLS).
>
>I'm not sure what the burden refers to, but cost implications to me seem=20
>same,
>trident HW can do VPLS.
>From complexity POV, I don't expect much different development time to=20
>write
>functioning control-plane to either.
>
>I'm not against Trill, I think Trill, and especially SPB-M are great, now=20
>they
>just feel too little and 20 years too late. There was no particular=20
>reason why
>SPB-M couldn't have existed 20 years ago in HW. But perhaps it's good it
>didn't, it might have made ethernet 'good enough', that selling MPLS might
>have been much more difficult.
>
>--=20
> ++ytti
I think in fairly short order both TRILL and 802.1AQ will be depercated in=20
place of VXLAN and using BGP EVPN as the control plane ala Juniper=20
QFX5100/Nexus 9300.=20
Phil
