RE: Migrating to MPLS

From: Michael Stout (michaelgstout@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2006 - 11:57:07 ART


I would prefer the topo Joe outlined.
However the design with 21 internet sites will work too.
I would just make sure you dont use you corp net as an internet transit
area.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: "Joe Rinehart" <jjrinehart@hotmail.com>
  Reply-To: "Joe Rinehart" <jjrinehart@hotmail.com>
  To: <supernet@comcast.net>, <cisco@groupstudy.com>
  CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
  Subject: RE: Migrating to MPLS
  Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:09:47 -0700
  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

  _______________________________________________________________________
  Subscription information may be found at:
  http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

  _______________________________________________________________________
  Subscription information may be found at:
  http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 15:41:57 ART