Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS

Fri Apr 4 17:24:42 UTC 2003

Thanks for your advice David.  Your point is very well received.  

One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be the ability
to allow customers to use non-IP protocols.  I don't think RFC2547bis
will work for this.  However if we do go the MPLS route then RFC2547bis
will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs.  That's
definitely a benefit.  

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bigge [mailto:david.bigge at giftofsite.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM
To: Mike Bernico; nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS

Mike,

An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard.  I would lean
towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS.  Along with not
letting
one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any
problems for a more stable long-term network.

You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs.  Are you considering that also?

We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased.

My 2 cent.

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico at illinois.net>
To: <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM
Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS

>
> All,
>
> I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort to offer a
> Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone.  Our network is currently not
MPLS
> enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each
> technology.  If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one
of
> these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Martini VPN
>
> Pro
> ----
> Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish
> Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services
like
> L3 VPNs and TE
>
>
> Con
> ---
> Enabling MPLS is a huge change
> Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us to new and
> interesting bugs and stability issues
>
>
>
> L2TPv3 VPN
>
> Pro
> ---
> Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change
>
>
> Con
> ----
> Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think)
> Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers.
>
>