[88460] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CAUTION: Potentially Dumb Question...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Frisvold)
Mon Feb 6 15:24:57 2006
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:24:30 -0500
From: Jason Frisvold <xenophage0@gmail.com>
To: Rich Sena <ras@thick.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0602061052010.31182@crunchy.thick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2/6/06, Rich Sena <ras@thick.net> wrote:
> I'm trying to cut a few financial corners in our remote site budgets. I
*insert network crash noises here*
> have sites that are homed back to the main campus offices via ATM and
> other leased lines. These sites also currently have dedicated Internet
> access. I was doing some brain cramming re: MPLS and possibly killing
> our dependence on ATM by going the MPLS route over a common provider. It
> struck me to venture a guess as to why I couldn't utilize the same
> connection for both - Internet transit via the common provider as well as
> an MPLS mesh between all my sites and my main campuses also via that same
> connection with the common provider...
Wouldn't this be something similar to frame relay? If I understand
MPLS correctly, this should be a fairly simple implementation ...
> If you feel this is OT then reply to me direct if there is other interest
> I will summarize...
I'm interested in responses to this ... MPLS is still a four letter word .=
. :)
> --
> Rich Sena - ras@thick.net
--
Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
XenoPhage0@gmail.com
