The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: UTI (Universal Transport Interface)
Luc, > Raymond, > > > Chris, > > I can't find any info about "universal VPN" or "L2TPv3" from CCO. I find th e > > Please have a look at : > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/vpn/unvpnst/2tpv3_ov.htm > > > > UTI info in 12.0S and 12.0ST IOS releases but it doesn't give much > > background info. > > Does "AToM" stand for "Any Transport over MPLS" or just for ATM ("ATM over > > "Any Transport over MPLS" > ATM was the first one we had. > > > MPLS")? Is FR also supported? The doc I got from CCO is always based on ATM > > Please see at the bottom of the page of URL above. > > > only, never mentions a word about other layer2 technologies like FR. The wa y > > to do ATM and Ethernet are also quite different. EoMPLS doesn't require you > > to configure a tunnel but using keyword "l2ptransport" while AToM does. So > > Ths CLI is different for ATMoMPLS vs EoMPLS. > > > that's why I'm guessing AToM doesn't apply to any transport though I heard > > this since last year. > > So I guess UTI can generally replace GRE tunnels, what benefits from UTI? > > UTI can transport layer2. GRE transports layer3. Since one could run MPLS over GRE, and since AToM can transport layer2, it follows that a combination of GRE+MPLS can transport layer2. Yakov. > Thanks, > > Luc > > > well, I think all answers depend on the info I'm looking for. > > Appreciate if you can find out some info regarding to UTI or L2TPv3. (like > > what's new in L2TPv3 comparing to v2, etc). > > > > > > best regards, > > Yinglam (Raymond) Cheung > > Double CCIE #6961 > > Senior Network Engineer > > Schlumberger Network Infrastructure Solutions > > Tel: 1 (713) 513-3285 > > Cell:1 (832) 274-0126 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher Lewis [mailto:chrlewis@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:21 PM > > To: rcheung@houston.sns.slb.com > > Cc: MPLS Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: UTI (Universal Transport Interface) > > > > > > Raymond, > > > > There should be material on Cisco's website under the title of "universal > > VPNs" which will give the marketing positioning of these two technologies. > > > > I'll give you the standard Cisco answers to these questions. > > > > What IETF draft is UTI based on? > > UTI is the Cisco proprietary pre-standard implementation of L2TPv3, as such > > you won't see a draft on it. There are plenty of L2TPv3 drafts for you to > > find on the IETF website. There is very little difference between UTI and > > L2TPv3 though. > > > > Why Cisco has all similar technologies on the market? > > Good question. Cisco wants to remain the number one supplier of networking > > equipment, as such, it cannot offer just one solution to a problem, as no > > one solution appeals to all customers. > > > > Does anyone has a list of pros and cons of Cisco's UTI as compared to > > EoMPLS or AToM? What IETF draft is UTI based on? > > Well, first EoMPLS is part of AToM. AToM is about transporting any layer 2 > > frame over an MPLS network, as such, ethernet is one of those layer 2 > > technologies transported. Next, UTI/L2TPv3 is for transport of layer 2 > > frames over IP cores, whereas AToM is there for layer 2 transport over MPLS > > cores. UTI/L2TPv3 provides the same sort of functionality as AToM, but a > > customer does not have to implement MPLS in their network if they chose not > > to upgrade software on their core routers (in either case, upgrading the > > edge routers are of course necessary). UTI/L2TPv3 was created based off > > customer demand for this functionality. > > So there is little point in listing the pros and cons, basically the > > customer will decide which is better depending on whether they want MPLS in > > their core or not. Currently, the majority of customers have opted to > > implement MPLS for this functionality. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > Chris > > > > At 07:11 PM 8/1/2002, Yinglam Cheung wrote: > > >Does anyone has a list of pros and cons of Cisco's UTI as compared to > > EoMPLS > > >or AToM? What IETF draft is UTI based on? Why Cisco has all similar > > >technoloies on the market? > > >I tried the example on CCO document and it doesn't work (while using EoMPL S > > >it works). Does UTI have any debug commands (other than "debug tunnel") to > > >troubleshoot? > > > > > >best regards, > > >Yinglam (Raymond) Cheung > > >Double CCIE #6961 > > >Senior Network Engineer > > >Schlumberger Network Infrastructure Solutions > > >Tel: 1 (713) 513-3285 > > >Cell:1 (832) 274-0126 > > > > > >------- > > >The MPLS-OPS Mailing List > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml > > >Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml > > > > ------- > > The MPLS-OPS Mailing List > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml > > Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml > > > > ------- > The MPLS-OPS Mailing List > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml > Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|