[c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering
Kanagaraj Krishna
kanagaraj at aims.com.my
Sun Jun 25 22:50:10 EDT 2006
Rob,
The things you mentioned makes sense and true(redundant payment, no
diversity etc). We wanted better connectivity to America and Europe at a
cheaper price and thats what mooted this suggestion. Previously we had a bad
experience with our direct connection to MCI-Asia (AS703), its path was not
as much prefered as MCI-US (AS701) resulting in low utilization of the link
compared to the high cost paid. A L2TP tunnel would give us an opportunity
to be directly connected to AS701 in US(just an example) at fraction of the
cost. Comments? Have you seen similar L2TP scenarios/setup in the ISP
industry?
Regards,
Kana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>
To: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my>
Cc: "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon at ttec.com>; <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering
>
> What problem are you trying to solve by doing this? It seems to me
> that you're not only paying for your bandwidth twice (once via arbinet
> and once via your current upstream provider), but you aren't getting
> any diversity out of it. Are you trying to appear to be bigger than
> you actually are? Meet a requirement for PI space?
>
> ---Rob
>
>
> Kanagaraj Krishna <kanagaraj at aims.com.my> writes:
>
> > We were looking at Arbinet(US) to setup our L2TP tunnel BGP session.
They have
> > a few major players connected to them. For your information we are
planning to
> > run this tunnel through on our current upstream provider. Any thoughts
on
> > these? Thanks
> >
> > Kana
> >
> >>
> >> You still have to get the bits there somehow, which is a major
> >> component of the price differential between Malaysia and the US. How
> >> were you planning to do that?
> >>
> >> ---Rob
> >>
> >>
> >> "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my> writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > The reason why this was brought up by the management, is related to
the IP
> >> > pricing difference between US and Asia. We are based in Malaysia and
the
> >> > pricing charged by international upstream providers (local POP) is
very
> >> > expensive. L2TP is an alternative to connect with them directly in
> >> US/Europe
> >> > at a cheaper price minus the cost of having a direct IPLC.
> >> >
> >> > Fiancial budget = Management ....... :-)
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Kanagaraj Krishna
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon at ttec.com>
> >> > To: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my>
> >> > Cc: "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>;
<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> >> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:52 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Why would you do L2TP and not GRE?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have enough IP routing to put up a working l2tp tunnel, then
you
> >> >> have enough to do multihop ebgp.
> >> >>
> >> >> If your ip routing and your desired BGP peering is running over a
> >> >> different provider, then a tunnel could be neccessary to avoid
routing
> >> >> loops.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only gain you could possibly have with this setup is if Provider
A
> >> >> (the route to provider B) is cheap/fast/reliable to get to B but
nowhere
> >> >> else, and provider B is cheap/fast/reliable to get everywhere else.
> >> >>
> >> >> Otherwise, if you are connected to your new provider, tunneling
shouldnt
> >> >> even enter the picture.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now as an aside, if you are a network engineer that is getting
stumped
> >> >> by technical crap spewed from management, something is very wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Either you dont know you business or your management cant mind
theirs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kanagaraj Krishna wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Its one option suggested by my management for our next upstream
> >> provider
> >> > (@
> >> >> > getting bandwidth). I need to understand the pros and cons of the
> >> > running
> >> >> > BGP on a L2TP tunnel like overhead, link quality etc, before
moving any
> >> >> > further. I found stuff on L2TP but not related to BGP. Hope to get
more
> >> >> > inputs. Thanks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> > Kana
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> > From: "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>
> >> >> > To: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my>
> >> >> > Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:04 AM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Kanagaraj Krishna <kanagaraj at aims.com.my> writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Hi,
> >> >> >>> Due to cost issues tied to direct IPLC, we are thinking of
running
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>you mean international private leased circuits?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>BGP sessions with upstream providers through L2TP tunnels. It
would be
> >> >> >>>very helpful, if anyone in the group share advises on the pros
and
> >> >> >>>cons of this setup. A few other doubts are:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>this sounds dodgy to me and like a bad plan, but read on...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>- We have concerns on the stability of the virtual link like
quality
> >> >> >>>drop etc. Are there any mechanism to improve this as drop of
tunnel
> >> >> >>>would cause BGP flapping/dampening ?
> >> >> >>>- What would be the overhead on the bandwidth throughtput?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>what problem exactly are you trying to solve here? you have to
get
> >> >> >>bandwidth from somewhere... is the problem that you can't get
frame
> >> >> >>relay or other appropriate technology via vsat or terrestrial
circuit
> >> >> >>at a reasonable price?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ---rob
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>We would like to get more input before looking into further.
Thanks
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Regards,
> >> >> >>>Kanagaraj Krishna
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>_______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> >> >>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >> >> >>>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >> >> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kanagaraj Krishna
> > Senior Network Engineer
> > Network Engineering
> > Applied Information Management Services Sdn. Bhd.
> > (AIMS Sdn. Bhd.)
> > Ground Floor, Menara Aik Hua,
> > Changkat Raja Chulan,
> > 50200 Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.
> >
> > Tel : +603-20314988 Ext : 395
> > Mobile : 012-3266151
> > Fax : +603-20318948
> > Email : kanagaraj at aims.com.my
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list