[c-nsp] ME3600 autoroute & 10G EFP issues

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 03:46:17 PM Eric Van Tol 
wrote:

> The primary reason it's L2 was because we had a slow
> migration from ME3400s/MRV OS912s to ME3600s.  There
> were connection points in the ring that required L2
> because of intra-ring L2 services we were providing to
> customers.

You could put all these inside EoMPLS (or VPLS).

> Secondly, the 50ms-failover times of G.8032
> ERPS was a big decision point.  That said, I've recently
> become aware of LFA and plan to test that in the lab. 

Indeed.

Do test rLFA as well.

> The other thing that I just remembered is that we still
> have a lot of ME3400s in the network that don't support
> >1998B IP MTUs.  While I can certainly boost the
> Junipers and ME3600s to 1998, I don't see how it really
> gains much.  Thoughts?

Fair point.

I mean, to be pedantic, you could have asymmetric MTU's 
across the different platforms, provided you take care of 
any routing protocols, and also advertise the effective MTU 
to your customers.

However, to avoid any confusion, you can configure the 
effective MTU on all devices. After all, during the 
migration, you'll be touching all the devices anyway.

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/20140115/e5d9a146/attachment.sig>