[c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, July 08, 2013 08:22:49 PM Phil Bedard wrote:

> It really depends on how things are deployed and how
> distributed they are. We distribute the larger
> aggregation nodes to various sites and then generally
> have access rings with access nodes hung off of those. 
> We typically do not have too many nodes on a single 1GE
> ring, they are balanced using passive CWDM/DWDM.  Each
> access node has a single TE LSP to each aggregation node
> over which all services ride.   With access rings with
> less than 10 nodes you have a low number of actual LSPs.
>  The agg nodes might terminate 20-30 access rings
> resulting in most cases well under a thousand LSPs,
> which isn't really a big deal for modern equipment. The
> services are generally either terminated or stitched at
> the agg node, so it does result in quite a few unique
> LDP sessions, but the scale of those are in the
> thousands today.  It's also not terribly difficult to
> add more agg nodes but to date we haven't had to do
> that.   I can think of high density situations where
> this model probably wouldn't work out due to control
> plane scale issues.

Our topology wasn't that dissimilar, but the concern about 
RSVP in the access was as much as about scaling as it was 
human administration.

> We have been using ALU gear in that capacity for going on
> 4 years now, but they have only had nodes capapable of
> doing a 10G ring and drop for about a year now, but that
> was a very small part of our overall business. Cisco and
> Juniper didn't even make it past the early RFP stages
> because at the time they had no comparable equipment. 
> I'm not going to say the gear is perfect, and has been
> lacking things like H-QoS until very recently, but all
> of their boxes have had feature sets for years that
> Cisco/Juniper are only now getting to.  Now their boxes
> support things like RFC3107/LDPoRSVP/PBB even on the
> access nodes.

ALU did pitch us their box at least 8x months before the 
other vendors had any offering. It was too big for us, even 
though it had the features we needed.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20130708/aa559c3b/attachment.sig>