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

Francois Menard francois at menards.ca
Sat Nov 13 19:27:15 CST 2010


So if T-MPLS is a look-out for trouble, for much-bigger-than-metropolitan network architectures, I am down to 3 choices.

Let's assume PBB-TE is not yet widely implemented and let's assume that there are few automated provisioning interfaces designed for MEF9+14 equipment, then it doesn't leave much other choice but VPLS does it not ?

F.

On 2010-11-13, at 5:38 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

> 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