-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Joe,
I described l2vpn (along with its pros and cons) in my email. Which
specific case are you asking about?
Basically, if you want to use the same encapsulation at both ends,
l2vpn is L3 protocol agnostic. However, if you want to do
interworking (say between ATM and PPP), you can only carry IP. It's
all in the draft which I referenced in my earlier email.
Martini specifies that the encapsulation must be the same at both
ends and has, AFAIK, no mechanism for interworking.
CCC has the new encapsulation types (ending in -tcc) which allow you
to do translation between ATM, FR and PPP (not sure about cisco-hdlc
and I know that it currently excludes ethernet). I can't remember
what the limitations are wrt the L3 traffic.
Regards,
Guy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Lin [mailto:jlin@doradosoftware.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:18 PM
> To: Guy Davies; 'Sophia Lei'; 'dave o'leary';
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] two VPN sites and CCC
>
>
> Couldn't L2-VPN based on draft-kompella work instead
> of CCC also in this case?
>
>
> ---- Guy Davies <Guy.Davies@telindus.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > -----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+I3Z
> gnUXQAn3eI
> > > > 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/1bhYKh4XljGnaIr
> IVo/AAnAy3
> > A0OUUudYttSJ14qZt2kgFHQp
> > =zPWE
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.1
iQA/AwUBPGzP6Y3dwu/Ss2PCEQKHnACgp/vpXva8BjZzAZM8hLMgczWrRfkAniH9
mlVlLN1jV2K6IpDHPH00icAp
=kESa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:39 EDT