The MPLS-OPS Archive

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

Thamir

The point U are raising is so broad that it could not be answered in one msg 
.

Their is many event where interoperaility for certain function are being 
tested , search the internet for "Interoperability  X  Y " where X and Y are 
the manufacturer U are interested in .

Divide the problem :

A) For P Interoperability
    Area : LDP , IGP (IS-IS or OSPF) , MPLS-TE , FRR, ...etc .
             Study each area (it need some lab test )
B) For PE Interoperability
     Area : BGP , MP-BGP , BGP/MPLS VPN , Psuedowire Service ,VPLS ...etc .
              Study each area ((it need some lab test ) .
C) Tool modification for OAM ,Training OPS team
     This is one area which  normally a stop/block the deployment of new 
type of box as the initial
      capex is quite high .

Point "A" is the simplest one , followed by "B" and "C" .

In Reality :

1- having another Box is mainly strategic decision and not just financily .
    Why :  U Current provider X will offer U some discount which make the 
cost of integrating
               box from provider Y not very cost wise attractive .

              People/Staff  (OPS , Instl ...etc ) do not like the change .

              Managesr do not like the risk (they do not want  to be disturb 
at midnight ).

             Do not under estimate the influence of the current provider X 
within U company .

   Finally it is a company culture , some  are open and they have the 
knowledge and resource
   to test and deploy (if it fit their requirement ) new box even from small 
manufacturer
    (i once read that World com was very open to test and deploy any good 
box even from
      startup ). Other adopt the religion of "do not touche it as far as it 
is working " .

  2- I saw but did not participated in some interoperability project , it is 
quite big we are
     talking about 8-10 man/year for PE mainly for BGP/MPLS VPN . Recall 
that U also need to test
     the new provider Y box for througput ....etc .

     Make sure that the candidate box provider Y is behind U and will 
allocate the needed resource to
    help U , Some test (U define the script but they do the actual testing ) 
could be carried by box
     provider Y .

3- Finally , if the company do not have the resource they could hire a 
consultancy firm to carry
   the job . Also  it minimize the personal risk  (no need to be a 
dead/Jobless hero )


N.B: i am based in SA , U could contact me on my email .

Brgds
>From: "Thamir M.Al Hammad" <thammad@stc.com.sa>
>To: "vishwanathan mv" <cheerfulmvp@yahoo.com>, <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
>Subject: RE: [MPLS-OPS]: Multi-vendor in MPLS domain
>Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:32:44 +0300
>
>
>Thanks Padmini for your prompt replay,
>But what services you are running? Any NGN?
>Do you have mix of PEs? Or mix of Ps (mix in the core)?
>
>Br,
>Thamir
>
>
>   _____
>
>From: vishwanathan mv [mailto:cheerfulmvp@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:09 AM
>To: Thamir M.Al Hammad
>Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: Multi-vendor in MPLS domain
>
>Yes of course its practical.  We in India very much have this kind of
>configuration and things work fine provided you find the compatible
>routers.
>
>- Padmini
>
>"Thamir M.Al Hammad" <thammad@stc.com.sa> wrote:
>	Hi,
>
>	I want to know your opinion regarding running MPLS from
>multi-vendors, is it practical? I mean the PE from vendor and the P from
>other vendor or  mix of PEs and Ps from different vendors? Specially, in
>NGN environment where no doubt about TE, QoS, L2VPN & multicasting.
>	I am afraid about this because I think any of these technologies
>still draft in IETF and there are different philosophies from different
>vendors.
>
>	Do you know any case which successful or failed? Any white
>paper? What is the possible risk?
>
>	Br,
>	Thamir  Alhammad
>
>
>Disclaimer: The information in this email and in any files transmitted
>with it,
>is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or
>privileged material.
>Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you receive this
>in error,
>please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any
>computer.
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>distribution or
>any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly
>prohibited.
>Statement and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender,
>and do not
>necessarily reflect those of STC.
>   _____
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Make Yahoo! your home page
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/my/navbar/sethp/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
>Disclaimer: The information in this email and in any files transmitted with 
>it,
>is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or 
>privileged material.
>Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you receive this in 
>error,
>please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any 
>computer.
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
>distribution or
>any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly 
>prohibited.
>Statement and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender, 
>and do not
>necessarily reflect those of STC.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

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

MPLScon 2005 - May 16-19, NYC, NY
http://www.mplscon.com/