|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org To: Rob Laidlaw <laidlaw@consecro.com>, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>, Nevin Gonsalves <nevin@yahoo-inc.com> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:38:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <CANbAyV5W8=Rs6crOfu+FmQ9-7BGRTW7iENOFZhupdkd_ff-XqQ@mail.gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On 24/May/16 06:29, Rob Laidlaw wrote: > Yes. Many vendors are using l2vpn/pseudo-wire services of one sort or > another to provide circuits and most do not transport LACP by default. To the OP's case, commercially, I'd find it interesting to transport a 100Gbps circuit as EoMPLS rather than EoDWDM, considering the amount of bandwidth one would need to throw at an IP/MPLS network to transport 100Gbps effectively... Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |