[c-nsp] L2TPv3 vs. VPLS

[Tantsura, Jeff]

Vincent,


Non flexible VC topology
Burden of a full mesh of VC LSP on control plane for big networks
Hierarchical topology defined in draft (H-VPLS)
But hub & spoke topology required between 2nd and first level nodes

Multicast/Broadcast optimization
Mcast/Bcast replication generates load on MPLS Core
Would be great if frames were multicasted natively in MPLS Core
VPN Autodiscovery :

Burden of Provisioning of full mesh VC LSP
3 Drafts (LDP, Radius, BGP)
Still nothing implemented 
(besides full BGP framework on Juniper ...)

VPN OAM
Point to multipoint L2 VPN quite hard to manage (collection of circuits)
VPLS testing defined in draft-stokes-vkompella-ppvpn-hvpls-oam 
Still no implementation available

--
Jeff Tantsura  CCIE# 11416
Senior IP Network Engineer


-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent De Keyzer [mailto:vincent at dekeyzer.net] 
Sent: 19 September 2005 11:02
To: 'Tantsura, Jeff'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 vs. VPLS

Jeff,

in short, what are those major limitations?

Vincent


> If you don't need P2MP and don't have MPLS backbone in place don't even
> consider VPLS, there are still some major limitations.
> I think either L2TPv3 on layer 3 or QinQ on layer 2 would be suitable for
> you. In the past I used L2TPv3 between 2x10720 to transport 4Gb L2 traffic
> between 2 IX's, worked just fine, the only issue we've had was MTU when
> main
> STM16 ring went down and L2TP tunnel was rerouted via Ethernet links.
> 
> Hope this helps,
>