[c-nsp] Seamless MPLS interacting with flat LDP domains

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Apr/19 21:52, Gert Doering wrote:

> We both are :-) - but EVPN is nice for lots of the stuff where people
> tried to made VPLS work at scale.

I was never a fan of VPLS. I always thought a classic l3vpn was way
simpler. But VPLS came at a time where it was cool to say, "VPLS", and
even cooler to admit to running it. As network operators, there was an
odd fascination about creating a LAN out of a national/regional/global
network, and proving to customers that it actually worked. I wasn't into
that.

10 years on, and I'm still not convinced by EVPN. Granted, our market is
walking away from classic VPN's and embracing IP, cloud and SD-WAN. So
we really aren't MPLS-relevant anymore, in Africa, except for just your
garden-variety MPLS-based IP forwarding.

Note, I do not speak for the data centre and exchange point peering market.

Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20190501/6020f7b3/attachment.sig>