Recent operational experience choosing between PBB-TE, MEF9+14, VPLS or T-MPLS ?

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Sat Nov 13 16:38:43 CST 2010


On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:30:19 -0500
Francois Menard <francois at menards.ca> wrote:

> I'm embarking on a new project which involves a large scale MAN network where ultimately, the objective is to carry QinQ, while at the same time delivering services over IPv6.
> 
> The objective is to support jumbo frames on all interfaces, at least to carry QinQ standard-size ethernet frames, but ideally as large as possible
> 
> There seem to be 4 approaches to do this.
> 
> a) The IEEE PBB-TE approach - but little implementations.
> b) The MEF9+14 approach, mature, but manual provisioning
> c) The VPLS approach, concerns with too much manual provisioning.
> d) The T-MPLS approach, concerns with maturity
> 
> The objective is to support the functionality not only in the CORE, but also on cost effective multi-tenant & redundant customer CPEs.
> 
> I have not seen a, or b or d supported in a low-cost customer CPE.
> 
> I am currently favouring c, for reasons of maturity and wide implementation, but may be missing on recent progresses in the b) land.
> 
> Any thoughts ?
> 
> Any published IETF material on the topic ?
> 

I'd avoid T-MPLS - 

"Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful"

http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5704

Regards,
Mark.




More information about the NANOG mailing list