[c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?

[Masood Ahmad Shah]

In case of Cisco, how about point to multipoint LSP's & multipoint to point
LSP's? If you need scalable VPLS you may find JUNOS (juniper) better than
IOS. Although both vendors are supporting LDP/RSVP-TE, but they have some
layer 8-9 :) issues. One (Cisco) is supporting LDP while juniper is working
extensively on RSVP-TE(BGP).


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:04 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?

On (2008-08-03 18:18 +0500), Masood Ahmad Shah wrote:

> MPLS VPN, TE and QoS, If all you need in one BOX than better you go for
> Juniper M Series. Juniper M10i or M120/320.

M10i is quite aging platform, displaying varying amount of issues. I'd
say MX and M120 would be better picks.
 One particular example comes to mind is inability to pop explicit-null
and decreasing IP TTL at the same time, making egress PE disappear from
traceroute, when using core-hiding and explicit-null. (PFC3B also
suffers from this, but PFC3C with SXH should not, haven't tested though).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 1:41 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?
> 
> On (2008-08-02 20:20 +0000), Felix Nkansah wrote:
> 
> > I am working on an MPLS proposal for a mobile carrier (with 2mil+
> > customers).
> > 
> > I need to decide on what routers to use as PE and P for their backhaul
> > between 5 sites.
> > 
> > I am torn between proposing the Cisco ASR 1000 OR the Cisco 7600 series
as
> > PE/P.
> > 
> > Please let me know what your expert opinion is on this matter. They
> require
> > MPLS VPN, TE, and QoS.
> 
> You should find out very carefully if or not you can live with LAN
> card limitations. Without knowing specific of your QoS requirements,
> it's very likely that you are terminating customers to subinterfaces,
> effectively requiring HQoS which LAN cards do not do.
>  Other limitations that pop in my mind are, no vlan local significance,
> no IPv6/uRPF (and chassis wide strict or loose in IPv4), no IPv6 CoPP,
> no TOS byte transparency, either you lose up-to /128 lookup or L4 lookups
> in IPv6.
> 
> If you find out that you can't live with LAN cards, the main attraction
> of 7600/6500 goes away and you have much more options to choose from.
> ASR1k, MX, M, GSR, CRS.
>  But if you are aware of all the catches with LAN interfaces and can
> live/workaround them, it's very good value to your money. However, in my
> book they suite much better LSR/P role than LER/PE role.
> 
> -- 
>   ++ytti
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
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/