[192288] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MPLS in the campus Network?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wayne Bouchard)
Mon Oct 24 16:20:48 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:13:04 -0700
From: Wayne Bouchard <web@typo.org>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
In-Reply-To: <6a210ce9-6694-86c3-1690-499767d8a669@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If the reason for L2 transport is purely customer driven and purely
ptp, then a L2 VPN solution would be better than directly transporting
the frames. If you don't have to bridge it directly, don't. Keep the
core at layer 3 wherever possible. L2 can be very hard to debug when
there are issues.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 06:58:51PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 20/Oct/16 18:45, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> >
> > Sure - but it's probably worth revisiting the origins of those
> > requirements, and whether there are better alternatives.
>
> Indeed.
>
> What we've seen is customers who prefer to manage their own IP layer,
> and just need transport. These types of customers tend to be split
> between EoDWDM and EoMPLS preferences. Whatever the case, their primary
> requirement is control of their IP domain.
>
> What we're not seeing anymore is l3vpn requirements, particularly on the
> back of on-premise IT infrastructure moving into the cloud. We see this
> driving a lot of regular IP growth.
>
> Mark.
---
Wayne Bouchard
web@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/
