[c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

Phil Bedard philxor at gmail.com
Sat Jul 6 11:16:28 EDT 2013

Most of the time these aren't L3 customers it is L2VPN. Like an
instance doing cell backhaul where a customer wants two circuits which
take diverse paths around a ring. You can do it with G.8032 and
different VLANs but its somewhat easier using MPLS along with the
benefit of the 50ms protection RSVP-TE can provide. Or IP FRR If you
aren't in a ring scenario which breaks it.

Phil From: Andrew Miehs
Sent: 7/6/2013 5:07
To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 03:23:43 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> > Not at all. But adding MPLS to customer would increase
> > our exposure.
> At $previous_job, this was a serious consideration, mostly
> because the customers were starting to pressure ISP's into
> making redundancy not only native, but usable without much
> input from the customer.

Don't see why adding MPLS would help very much here - especially
considering the security risk!

What is the difference on input for the customer between connecting to a
PE, or connecting to a CE provided by yourselves?
The main reason for running a PE out to a customer site would be if the
customer requires a lot of different VPNs/ VRFs which you are routing for
him - L3 tunnels vs L2 -  and you don't have a leased line capable of
separating these VPNs...

So why couldn't you just run a pair of 3900s CEs (eBGP private ASes between
PEs and CEs, iBGP between the two CEs) and HSRP/ GLBP for the customer side
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list