[177452] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Bedard)
Tue Jan 20 10:17:31 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:17:20 -0500
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
To: Marian =?ISO-8859-2?B?z3Vya292aeg=?= <md@bts.sk>
In-Reply-To: <20150120080429.GA95997@bts.sk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
For many people eliminating L2 switching and building on top of a L3=20
network is a good thing, especially if you are using BGP as the control=20
plane.=20
I'm not sure I follow the two routers with 40GE interfaces if you are just=20
building L2 domains to interconnect people. =20
Phil=20
On 1/20/15, 8:04 AM, "Marian =C4=8Eurkovi=C4=8D" <md@bts.sk> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:37:35PM -0500, Phil Bedard wrote:
>> I think in fairly short order both TRILL and 802.1AQ will be depercated=20
>>in=20
>> place of VXLAN and using BGP EVPN as the control plane ala Juniper=20
>> QFX5100/Nexus 9300.=20
>
>We also evaluated VXLAN for IXP deployment, since Trident-2 introduced HW
>support for it. But VXLAN does *not* create a network for you, it relies=20
>on
>some existing underlying IP network, on top of which VXLAN creates=20
>stateless
>tunnels.
>
>By using TRILL, we could connect 4 switches into a ring (or any other
>reasonable topology) and have a fully functional network with=20
>shortest-path
>"routing" of L2 packets.
>
>With VXLAN, we'd need at least two additional IP routers with bunch of
>40GE interfaces to perform the functions TRILL supports out of the box.
>
>Regards,
>
> M.
>
>
