[c-nsp] Assigning VLANs on a per-subnet basis

[Frank Bulk]

Robert:

I see what you're saying, but I'm trying to avoid what 'bep' already
identified: I don't want every router to look at each MAC address.  If it
did, then each ISP would need Gig-E interfaces on their routers, and that's
mighty $$$.  We're that close to an aggregate peak of over 100 Mbps.  If I
can use the Fujitsu's functionality to drop off traffic based on 802.1Q tags
then the ISPs can retain their Fast Ethernet interfaces.  We'll likely be
the first to upgrade to a Gig-E interface in another 18 to 36 months, but
the others might be years away from that.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Pinsky [mailto:bep at whack.org] 
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 1:11 AM
To: Robert Blayzor
Cc: frnkblk at iname.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Assigning VLANs on a per-subnet basis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Blayzor wrote:
> Frank Bulk wrote:
>> I'm looking to share an internet pipe with several other regional 
>> ISPs.  We will be receiving our internet pipe via a Cisco 2950 into 
>> our Fujitsu 4500 shelf to transport it around our regional ring.  But 
>> the way the Fuji equipment drops off each ISP's traffic on this 
>> RPR-Ethernet pipe has to be on a per-VLAN basis.  So all the traffic
*has* to be tagged.
> 
> Are you sure this is true? "has to be tagged"?  RPR is just packet, 
> you choose whether you route or bridge over it.  Why can't you just 
> place the participating ISP's router interfaces in a common subnet and 
> let the ISP's on each side route?  That way you could even exchange 
> routes with the ISP's on the same RPR without forcing it to go through 
> the upstreams. (should you choose to do so)  This should allow 
> everyone on the ring to share the max bandwidth to the upstream....
> 


I'm reading between the lines a bit, but I think that he is saying that the
Fujitsu has the ability to deliver the tagged packet to the proper ISP
router based on the .1q tag.  If this is the case, I think it offloads each
of the ISP routers from having to look at the MAC address to determine if
they need to accept it or not.

- --
=========
bep

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEQd/2E1XcgMgrtyYRAtXyAKCHTLrII52qI7+9zBBpav2ARMziuwCfetJF
eju3h0OwkoxJzYm9bp2/aO8=
=I2sh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----