[190153] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 1GE L3 aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Thu Jun 16 16:27:19 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7DXiAkEoW_fW55Sbw_0hq1HUFoVPz-PdLwDG+Ouc-Nvfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:27:14 +0300
To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 16 June 2016 at 22:36, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey,
> If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply make
> a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with
> 48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the L2VPN end point. If that is not enough the ZTE
> 8900 platform will provide a ton of ports that can do MPLS.
I wonder if you'd do this, if you could do L3 to the edge. And why is
termination technology dependant on termination rate?
> The tunnel is automatically redundant and will promote link down events, so
> there is not really any downside to doing it this way on low bandwidth
> peers.
When you say redundant, do you mean that label can take any path
between access port and termination IRB/BVI? Or do you actually have
termination redundancy?
If you don't have termination redundancy, you have two SPOF, access
port and termination.
If you do have termination redundancy, you're spending control-plane
resource from two devices, doubling your control-plane scale/cost.
I'm not saying it's bad solution, I know lot of people do it. But I
think people only do it, because L3 at port isn't offered by vendors
at lower rates.
--
++ytti
