[c-nsp] vlan across a routed link

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday 18 November 2009 11:10:22 pm 
masood at nexlinx.net.pk wrote:

> what’s wrong in extending your spanning-tree domain, as
> long as numbers of nodes are not too many?

You can't know that the number of nodes or VLAN's won't 
grow. And chances are, they will.

> People are
> using trunk links between different sites across the
> world in an enterprise environment,  and this is for what
> you use a trunk link.

Fair point. 

Digressing a little from the OP's post, control planes for 
Ethernet in the LAN (and small WAN) have different 
characteristics from various points of view when considered 
for large scale, probably Metro deployments.

> I would prefer the usage of trunk
> links and routed VLAN interfaces over EoMPLS and VPLS.

YMMV, but the performance of IP and EoMPLS shouldn't be that 
different since it's all done in hardware. VPLS is a little 
more complex by its nature.

> (keeping in mind the throughput issues on EoMPLS, mtu
> problems and overall network complexity)

I'm not sure increased MTU requirements makes a network any 
more complex. Besides, in a campus LAN/WAN with your own 
fibre, you can control the MTU on each of the links, which 
is great.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20091119/b76d7a98/attachment.bin>