[c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

[Pshem Kowalczyk]

There are ways of separating the 'core' MPLS from 'access' MPLS, with
separate IGP domains. Cisco came up (well not really, but at least
they made their devices compliant) with Unified MPLS
(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/optical/ps5726/ps11348/white_paper_c11-656286_ps6557_Products_White_Paper.html).
This sort of setup scales very well for mobile backhaul, but also can
be used for MetroE (L2) backhaul.
For us the biggest advantage comes from the fact that existing MPLS
network can be easily extended into access, with minimal changes to
the core (i.e. once UMPLS is set up in the core - services are only
provisioned onto the CPE).  We're considering this setup also for L3
services - it reduces the number of touch points to get the service
running. Instead of provisioning the CE and then two PEs - only one
(CPE-PE) has to be provisioned.

kind regards
Pshem


On 7 July 2013 03:16, Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> failover?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/