Recent operational experience choosing between PBB-TE, MEF9+14, VPLS or T-MPLS ?
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 ?
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"
More information about the NANOG