The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2004-Aug> msg00153



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Re: RE: L1/L2 over MPLS

  • From: Mourad BERKANE <mourad.berkane@fr.tiscali.com>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:29:07 +0200
  • CC: Aditya Kaul <Aditya.Kaul@relianceinfo.com>, "Bell, John" <john.bell@thus.net>, Alok Dube <Alok_Dube@hotpop.com>, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com, bannai@pacbell.net, akhan@flagtelecom.com
  • Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:55:45 -0400
  • To: "Clark, Anthony" <anthony.clark@frontiercorp.com>
  • User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2004 09:29:10.0465 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA1C2B10:01C48A85]

Clark, Anthony wrote:

> Help!  I have been task to develop a module that would support 20meg service to the customers house via a wireless media.  Is there anything out there in regards to wireless MPLS?
> 

Does your customers speak MPLS???

> Tony
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aditya Kaul [mailto:Aditya.Kaul@relianceinfo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:49 AM
> To: Bell, John
> Cc: Alok Dube; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com; bannai@pacbell.net;
> akhan@flagtelecom.com
> Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: RE: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some more.
> 
> Structure-Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP)
> draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-01.txt
> 
> draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-requirements-05.txt
> 
> http://www.axerra.com/pr25_Zarlink.asp
> http://www.corrigent.com/technology/packet_adm_build/sonet_over_mpls.htm
> 
> http://www.tdmoip.com/Article/0,6583,16760,00.html
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                        
>                       "Bell, John"                                                                                                     
>                       <john.bell@thus.n        To:       "Khan, Amjad" <akhan@flagtelecom.com>, "'Vinay Bannai'" <bannai@pacbell.net>, 
>                       et>                       Alok Dube <alokdube@hotpop.com>, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com                                   
>                                                cc:       (bcc: Aditya Kaul/INFOCOMM/RIL)                                               
>                       08/24/2004 06:36         Subject:  RE: [MPLS-OPS]: RE: L1/L2 over MPLS                                           
>                       PM                 Importance: Normal  Sender's OU: Reliance |------------------|                                
>                                                                                    | [ ] Confidential |                                
>                                                                                    |------------------|                                
>                                                                                                                                        
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others of interest....
> 
>     For Axerra's CESoPSN, see http://www.axerra.com/cesoip_whitepaper.pdf
> and draft-ietf-pwe3-cesopsn-00.txt.
> 
>     for RAD's TDMoIP, see draft-ietf-pwe3-tdmoip-01.txt. Rad also produced
> a
> comparison (in their favour, naturally) between TDMoIP and CESoPSN -
> http://www.dspcsp.com/tdmoip/compare.pdf
> 
> Internet drafts can be found at
> http://mirrors.isc.org/pub/www.watersprings.org/pub/id/index-wgp.html
> 
> Cheers,
>              John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khan, Amjad [mailto:akhan@flagtelecom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 01:17
> To: 'Vinay Bannai'; Alok Dube; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: RE: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> The discussion has gained depth and fire....
> One of the interesting RFCs on Sonet/SDH CEM over MPLS would be
> draft-malis-pwe3-sonet-03.txt and followed by
> draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-06.txt
> 
> Amjad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinay Bannai [mailto:bannai@pacbell.net]
> Sent: 24 August 2004 15:58
> To: Alok Dube; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: RE: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> For a RBOC which has legacy SONET/SDH network with ADM's sunk into the
> ground running TDM frames over a "unsynchronized" packet network does not
> make a whole lot of sense. But there are whole bunch of service providers
> who do not fit into the category. They want to get into the whole triple
> play business.
> 
> Things have progressed in the packet world where not only is it possible to
> transport TDM frames over packet network but IT IS possible to provide
> clock
> synchronization. And guess what? It is cost effective.
> 
> There is a interesting paper written about CES (circuit emulated services)
> coming out of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF). It is a technical
> specifications and goes into the whole timing issues. It is not a "how do I
> implement" CES over Ethernet network but more like a requirements and
> service specification document. Anyone can enroll and get a copy of the
> paper from the MEF website.
> 
> As far other services over MPLS network, it is becoming increasingly clear
> that you need a converged network layer for ease of provisioning,
> maintenance, OPEX and CAPEX reduction (just to name a few) at least in the
> core network. Ethernet in the last mile (or first mile) makes complete
> sense(in the access network).
> 
> Vinay Bannai
> Luminous Networks
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alok Dube [mailto:alokdube@hotpop.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:17 AM
> To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: RE: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have been watching this list with great interest for sometime now :o) and
> have been silent as I no longer indulge in networking though do keep
> running
> into old "monkey business" friends around here....
> 
> Eitherways,IMHO, running TDM frames over MPLS is really not the way to
> go...any good book on the principals of Data networks will tell you the
> same.
> 
>>From some benchmark results which I did as a part of the last network I
> worked with (and these were good big routers), the latency induced by
> packet
> switching nodes is too high compared to the circuit switched world. It
> really would make more sense to put routing protocol stacks on a TDM and
> use
> them for O&M  than to go the PWE3 way.
> 
> I just hope someone out there is doing it, it would be worthwhile :o)
> 
> As far as L2 over MPLS (packet/label switching) goes, I am pretty sure
> there
> are people who have worked on Frame switching on this list who could best
> share their experiences.
> Somehow, ethernet-last-mile still seems to be headed to be a clear winner
> from my observations in India, mainly on account of the low costs
> associated
> and low maintenance and the ease of procurement. (I think someone else
> mentioned this about another country sometime back).
> 
> so well, if you like "big/costly toys", good for you, :o)
> 
> but like me  if you want cheap and "will do" connectivity (which i think is
> actually the bulk of the market)...ethernet last mile seems fine and that
> is
> what I use as I type this email out..and whatever be the issues that may
> come up in the same, I think it is something providers have to figure out
> how to work around.
> 
> So my votes:
> L1 over MPLS---no way!!
> L2 over MPLS....umm maybe.. :o) (but then keep it at L2 and not L3 and L4
> and L5 over MPLS...)
> 
> just some comments...
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -------
> 
> Amjad Khan wrote:
> 
> Any ideas on Corrigent's packet ADM?  Do they transport SDH as a native
> frame over MPLS.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amos Rosenboim [mailto:r.amos@zahav.net.il]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:16 PM
> To: Gupta, Shailendra; Khan, Amjad; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> I would like to add to khan question.
> 
> Sometimes you need to transport L1 traffic and not hdlc. for example if you
> want to transport a voice tdm E1 over a packet network.
> In this example you need to transport the G.703 and not the PPP or HDLC
> layer.
> The only implementation i'm aware of is RAD IPMUX device.
> As far as i know this solution works only betwen two RAD devices and they
> encapsulate the G703 over ip and let the ELSR to do the mpls encapsulation
> of the ip packets. i don't think they encapsulate G703 directly into an an
> mpls frame.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of any other implementation?
> 
> 10x
> Amos
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gupta, Shailendra [mailto:Shailendra.Gupta@hk.mci.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 10:00 AM
> To: Khan, Amjad; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> Dear Khan
> I guess, u intend asking for transporting L2 Traffic like
> Ethernet/Frame-Relay/HDLC/ATM, using SDH/SONET as Physical Mode, over MPLS
> Cloud[like Cisco ATOM; Any Transport over ATM based on Martini]. If so, yes
> there are carriers who are implementing or implemented such commercial
> services[like Metro Ethernet/Vlan].
> I am sure, this distro will share more valuable inputs.
> Shail
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khan, Amjad [mailto:akhan@flagtelecom.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:20 PM
> To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
> Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: L1/L2 over MPLS
> 
> 
> Hi folks,
> Are there any recommended solutions around for transporting SDH/Sonet
> traffic over a packet/IP/MPLS based networkk.
> I believe the PWE3 WG has been working, using the martini drafts on
> transport over MPLS. Is there any commercial implementation done yet?
> Thanks,
> Amjad
> 
> 
> -------
> 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
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may
> be
> confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or
> distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is
> strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor
> disclose
> the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in
> error, please
> notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the
> original message and all copies from all locations in your computer
> systems.
> 
> 
> This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
> Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a
> result of software viruses.
> **********************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl -
> www.mailcontrol.com
> 
> -------
> 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
> 

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml