-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sophia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sophia Lei [mailto:sophialeii@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:24 PM
> To: Guy Davies; 'dave o'leary'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] two VPN sites and CCC
>
>
> > Hi Sophia,
> >
> > Other L2 VPN technologies should also do the trick
> > (e.g. martini,
> > l2vpn and gre, as mentioned by Dave). Since CCC is
> > not based on a
> > standard, it is likely to be available only on
> > networks using Juniper
> > at the edge. CCC has recently had some interesting
> > new capabilities
> > added which allow it to connect diverse
> > encapsulations (e.g. ATM to
> > FR or PPP to FR but, unfortunately, not yet
> > including Enet).
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> "First, thank you for all your help."
>
> That's good to hear. When you mention "recently...
> new capability added...", do you mean in JUNOS latest
> 5.2 code?
Yes. It's in 5.2.
> I just read through the release note and it
> says "Layer 2 VPN interwokring for PPP, HDLC..." but
> it also
> mentions "Enables you to configure encapsulation for
> transmitting IPv4."
>
> Does that mean I cannot transmit my IPX traffic using
> the Layer 2 VPN interwokring capability - i.e. one
> side of my link is ppp and the other is F/R for my IPX
> traffic?
That's correct. It's a feature of the l2vpn draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kompella-ppvpn-l2vpn-01.txt
) rather than a feature/failing of Juniper's implementation. :-)
> > Martini and l2vpn are limited to similar
> > encapsulations at both ends
> > of the VPN (the l2vpn draft does provide for
> > interworking of
> > differing encapsulations so long as you only want to
> > carry IP but
> > that doesn't meet your requirements).
> >
>
> This sounds the answer for the above question is "NO
> for my IPX traffic. But if my two links are same, I
> can use Martini or l2vpn for my IPX traffic, right?
Yes. For similar encapsulations, the L3 protocol is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, for the interworking, the L3 protocol must be IP.
> The CCC recently added interworking solution probably
> is the best even it is not the standard, right? Or it
> is just part of l2vpn solution for doing
> encapsulation.
Well. I don't know if the CCC interworking solution would support
IPX either. I haven't had any customers asking to do IPX over L2
VPNs (in general, rather than l2vpn specifically) before and the
interworking is so new that I can't say I've tried it.
> Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Regards,
Guy
> Sophia
> /IT
>
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dave o'leary [mailto:doleary@juniper.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:56 PM
> > > To: Sophia Lei; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] two VPN sites and CCC
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:18 AM 2/13/2002 -0500, Sophia Lei wrote:
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > > >From documentation, it seems CCC supporting L2
> > frame
> > > >transport over MPLS. Can I transport IPX traffic
> > > >through my SP's MPLS+CCC network for my VPN
> > sites?
> > > >I think it can as L2+IPX is just a L2 frame,
> > right?
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > >Any other way to do it if my SP don't do CCC?
> > >
> > > Switch service providers? :-)
> > >
> > > Something like GRE tunneling on the CPE routers
> > could also be used.
> > >
> > >
> > dave
> > >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGP 7.0.1
> >
> >
> iQA/AwUBPGqYcY3dwu/Ss2PCEQLCjACgwCOzNTaZeuz6eg+/Ub+I3ZgnUXQAn3eI
> > Jpr06mHH2850Ev2MzG35yH/9
> > =mU6j
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.1
iQA/AwUBPGqje43dwu/Ss2PCEQJJaQCdEIUM8C/1bhYKh4XljGnaIrIVo/AAnAy3
A0OUUudYttSJ14qZt2kgFHQp
=zPWE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:39 EDT