[57345] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (McBurnett, Jim)
Fri Apr 4 13:21:25 2003
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:20:50 -0500
From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett@msmgmt.com>
To: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico@illinois.net>,
"David Bigge" <david.bigge@giftofsite.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Mike,
I am not sure if this helps or not, or the # of VPN's, But have you =
considered
Cisco's GRE tunneling?
This will allow multi-protocol also..
Do a Search for DMVPN on the Cisco site..
This is a brand new feature...
Later,
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Bernico [mailto:mbernico@illinois.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:25 PM
> To: David Bigge; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Thanks for your advice David. Your point is very well received. =20
>=20
> One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be=20
> the ability
> to allow customers to use non-IP protocols. I don't think RFC2547bis
> will work for this. However if we do go the MPLS route then=20
> RFC2547bis
> will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs. That's
> definitely a benefit. =20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Bigge [mailto:david.bigge@giftofsite.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM
> To: Mike Bernico; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
>=20
> Mike,
>=20
> An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard. I would lean
> towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS. Along with not
> letting
> one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any
> problems for a more stable long-term network.
>=20
> You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs. Are you considering that also?
>=20
> We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased.
>=20
> My 2 cent.
>=20
> David
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico@illinois.net>
> To: <nanog@merit.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM
> Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS
>=20
>=20
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort=20
> to offer a
> > Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not
> MPLS
> > enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each
> > technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one
> of
> > these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Martini VPN
> >
> > Pro
> > ----
> > Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish
> > Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services
> like
> > L3 VPNs and TE
> >
> >
> > Con
> > ---
> > Enabling MPLS is a huge change
> > Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us=20
> to new and
> > interesting bugs and stability issues
> >
> >
> >
> > L2TPv3 VPN
> >
> > Pro
> > ---
> > Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change
> >
> >
> > Con
> > ----
> > Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think)
> > Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers.
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
