[c-nsp] ISP / MPLS "POP" design

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, November 08, 2013 02:00:20 AM CiscoNSP List 
wrote:

> How do larger networks deal with this situation? i.e.
> When you have multiple PE's terminating customer tails?

We dealt with this commercially.

We provided customers with a single uplink. Redundancy was 
never a native part of the solution. If a customer wanted 
redundancy, they paid for it. In such a case, we just 
deliver to live links, and let the customer configure to 
their pleasure.

If you offer protection by default, not only do you incur 
the cost of maintaining a sane configuration, you also lose 
what could have been extra revenue for a higher SLA.

Technically, MC-LAG looks good on paper. We deployed it once 
on Juniper's back in 2011 (only they had it at the time), 
and it wasn't without excitement.

As with you, I try to stray from non-standard, potentially 
volatile deployments, especially in a multi-vendor network. 
Probably why EEM has never tickled my fancy.

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/20131108/4ba2ab7d/attachment.sig>