1GE L3 aggregation
Baldur Norddahl
baldur.norddahl at gmail.com
Mon Jun 20 14:07:02 UTC 2016
On 2016-06-20 08:50, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We don't run l3vpn's for infrastructure requirements. We only run them
> if a customer wants an l3vpn service. Mark.
For a long time we only had one l3vpn customer: our self. It is a good
way to separate the control network from the internet. So our config was
"vrf default" = IGP and remote access to devices, "vrf internet" = the
thing we deliver to customers.
There are two reasons we are not doing l3vpn with ip termination at the
access edge devices anymore:
1) We have our own GPON switches and this is our original business. We
later connected to the ILEC to resell DSL service on their DSLAMs. The
ILEC delivers customers as Q-in-Q with one vlan per customer.
Unfortunately our access edge devices do not support layer 3 Q-in-Q
termination, so we had no other choice than to backhaul the DSL
customers in a l2vpn. We then reconfigured our GPON service to emulate
the same Q-in-Q one VLAN per customer so we only have one way to do things.
2) IP address scarcity. We used to allocate IP addresses to the edge
devices in blocks of 64 (/26 subnet). But this still creates
inefficiency where one area has free address space and another area is
out. Also it is much work to constantly allocate new address blocks. It
is easier with the centralized solution because customers can be pooled
together irrespectively of where they actually live using the supervlan
feature.
Also we have trouble with a bad IPv6 implementation, that made the
network unstable when we did IPv6 termination at the access edge. This
has since been solved. But it is a reminder that we sometimes end up
with different solutions than planed due to bugs and other unforeseen
trouble.
Regards,
Baldur
More information about the NANOG
mailing list