[c-nsp] EoMPLS v L2TPv3

[David Freedman]

Wow, this is actually a tricky question, so I'll jot down some points
for you to think about from the top of my head (and anybody, please feel
free to correct these if they are wrong, they may be out of date)

EoMPLS:

 - Requires end-to-end MPLS LSP
 - Does not support path fragmentation (need wider MTU end-to-end)
 - Hardware support good
 - OAM available
 - Closer ties with MPLS-TE
 - some vendors have attachment circuit interworking
 - some hardware vendors may not be happy about attachment circuit MTU
mismatch


L2TPv3:

 - Only requires IP (but has some rudimentary security (Cookie))
 - "Path" Can be encrypted by IPSEC (this is actually a moot point, even
in a world where stuff like draft-raggarwa-mpls-ipsec wasn't
implemented, you can still encrypt the payloads of both technologies)
 - Not well supported in hardware, lots of restrictions
 - interworking support in hardware poor
 - lack of proper OAM



Dave.


Michael Robson wrote:
> What is the added benefit of running an EoMPLS pseudowire across an MPLS
> cloud over an L2TPv3 tunnel over the same cloud?
> 
> 
> Michael