[c-nsp] 3750ME L2/MPLS combined scenario - "Thread Resurrection"

[Mark Tinka]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 12:36:08 am Rubens Kuhl Jr. 
wrote:

Hello all.

Apologies for resurrecting this very old thread, but...

> We've tried that with 3750ME, and the half a million bugs
>  and architectural flaws made us drop that line of
>  devices out of MPLS altogether. Keeping the PW with L2
>  on 3750ME will make your customer happier.

... we're in a situation where extending MPLS into the 
access may make a bit of sense.

The platform currently in the field is as described in this 
thread, the Cisco 3750ME, albeit it's working in Layer 2-
only mode, today. In the spirit of not wanting to replace 
these boxes with something else more capable as yet, do the 
comments from Rubens, above, still hold true as of IOS 
12.2(52)SE?

Keeping in mind the various hardware/software restrictions 
associated with this class of platforms, we'd be looking to 
run the following on the system (some are advertised as 
supported by Cisco, others are implied as such):

	* MPLS upstream to the core
	* IPv4 forwarding for customers
	* IPv4 forwarding over MPLS (upstream to core)
	* IPv6 forwarding for customers
	* IPv4, IPv6, MPLS ECMP
	* Locally-significant VLAN's for customers
	* EoMPLS for customers
	* l3vpn's for customers (BGP-based)
	* IS-IS (Loopbacks + Infrastructure)
	* BGP (default route importation only)

Since all our Layer 2 features are used to "wire" customers 
to the nearest Layer 3/MPLS-capable box, we have no need to 
implement Layer 2 features beyond local VLAN support, 
provided the ones mentioned above can work without issue.

We haven't had a chance to run anything as remotely advanced 
as the features highlighted above, so any useful operational 
feedback (especially the negatives) from folk who have would 
be much appreciated, as we begin our own tests as well.

Operator feedback in this case is initially far more useful 
than input from Cisco themselves. The 3750ME really only 
makes sense if those features can be reliably supported 
beyond paper; else, the case for Layer 2-only Ethernet 
switches becomes far more compelling, e.g., Cisco 2960, 
e.t.c.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20100102/5ac9e8e4/attachment.bin>