From: Joe Rinehart (jjrinehart@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 14 2006 - 14:09:47 ART
I used to work for AT&T and designed MPLS WANs for customers. Usually there
are two basic topologies when it comes to Internet access, centralized and
distributed, which is what they are suggesting here. Sometimes the reasons
for suggesting a centralized model has to do with scalability (maintaining
just one potential point of incursion as opposed to many), but it can mask
an additional reason, namely propagation of a default route. I know the way
AT&T had implemented MPLS only allowed a single active default route to be
used, per region (the network had regions for the US, EMEA, AP, and CALA).
It used to raise some eyebrows but since most had centralized Internet
access it was not as big a concern.
Personally I think having two sites, a primary and a secondary, makes sense
and isn't the management nightmare you are implying here.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
supernet@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:01 PM
To: cisco@groupstudy.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Migrating to MPLS
My company has 21 branch office worldwide. We currently run on frame relay
network and all the sites access the Internet via our main office. My
company recently hired a consulting company to migrate our network to MPLS.
Their plan is to use MPLS for the internal traffic but add Internet access
at each branch office (install 21 firewalls, IDSes etc). Does it make sense?
I think it'll be management nightmare to control 21 sets of firewall/ids.
Any advice? Thanks. Yoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 15:41:57 ART