The MPLS-OPS Archive

["M. ELK" <elkou141061@hotmail.com>]

Hi Spice

Reg :
Quote
Why would he not buy a Layer 3 switch (if what he wants is ethernet) , take 
a link and connect it off to the SDH/SONET multiplexer provided by the SP 
and use the same? What is the benefit he gets by terminating at a Packet 
switching kind of device on the SP end?
Unquote

In this case it is not Virtual any more ie: not a VPN , the customer is 
running his own Private
network leasing SDH/PDH B.W  from a provider . Sure VPN provide a lower cost 
solution .

Another point , Providing  Ethernet service was also forseen by the 
manufacturer of the
Sonet/SDH but as far as i undersatnd it did not fly (do not why) .
Their is several standrad in this area ( ITU-T G.7041 , ITU-X.86 ...etc )
Have a look to Tellabs web site , they have several white paper explaining 
this solution
(Choosing the best of Today's Eternet over SDH standards , Ethernet Over SDH 
Technologies
  ..etc ). The simplest solution is Ethernet Private Leased line where the 
customer is allocated
multiple of VC-12 instead of leasing the pre-defined E1/E3/T3/STM1...etc .

Brgds


>From: Spice Sylvia <falsesylvia@yahoo.co.uk>
>To: sthaug@nethelp.no, robert.mccallum@thus.net
>CC: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
>Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: Question about L2VPN over MPLS
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:11:15 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Hi Steiner,
>
>I agree L2VPN does have a market [forgive the sarcasm but so does poison 
>:)].
>
>The point I do not quite get is why would the end user want a termination 
>point on a Packet switching device with the SP?
>
>Are you saying that the cost difference between buying a Layer 2 switch 
>versus a Layer 3 switch is "so highly significant"?
>
>Why would he not buy a Layer 3 switch (if what he wants is ethernet) , take 
>a link and connect it off to the SDH/SONET multiplexer provided by the SP 
>and use the same? What is the benefit he gets by terminating at a Packet 
>switching kind of device on the SP end?
>
>
>sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> > The real problem with VPLS lies not in the technology but the actual
> > SLA that you can offer the customer. Just ask Cisco the question
> > and all you get back is "we would never recommend a vpls solution
> > due to the SLA issues". This is the main reason Cisco are very slow
> > to market with VPLS as they don't actually belive there is a "real"
> > requirement for it.
>
>It is not obvious to me that VPLS has SLA problems. Also, there are
>other vendors than Cisco (for instance Juniper), with more mature VPLS
>solutions.
>
> > Please don't mix this up with L2vpn as this is completely different.
> > Point to point L2vpns (especially ethernet) are at the moment the
> > hot sell for my company. In the space of 1 year we have sold
> > hundreds of these types of links throughout the whole of Britain.
>
>Well, I work for a company that also sells both point to point *and*
>point to multipoint L2. As far as we can see, there's a market for
>both types of solutions.
>
> > If the customer wants any-any connectivity I would always push them
> > down the L3VPN solution. I would also offer them OSPF, RIPv2 or
> > EIGRP (something which our company differs on other SP's).
>
>I would also in most cases push L3 solutions - mostly because I find
>them easier to debug. But there's definitely a market for L2 point to
>multipoint.
>
>Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
>
>-------
>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtmlplsops.shtml
>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
>
>---------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! 
>Download Messenger Now

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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