From: Petr Lapukhov (petr@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 15:19:51 ART
Hi,
The best thing would be to use L2TPv3 due to a number of reasons:
1) It uses effective SSS technology
2) It simply relays all Ethernet frames, w/o address learning
(this greatly simplifies router's job)
3) It does not need MPLS in the network core ;)
For the bridging over GRE tunnels, to say at first, it's an undocumented
feature. You may better resort to DLSw+ as a "supported" technology.
Next, bridging is essentially not as effective as L2TPv3 is, since it
learns MAC addresses and is more complex than effective PW3E relay
technology.
Of course, the biggest pain with any tunneling (and Ethernet) is MTU
issue. The best option is to make sure your core MTU is enough to
handle the default edge 1500 bytes MTU with all the L2TPv3 overhead
(24+14 in the less "space consuming" case, AFAIR)
HTH
-- Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379 (R&S/Security/SP) petr@internetworkexpert.comInternetwork Expert, Inc. http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
2007/8/24, Geert Nijs <geert.nijs@simac.be>: > > Hi group, > > For disaster recovery, we need to create the same vlan (same ip range) on > two seperate geographical locations. Of course, we will have routing > problems when these two portions are not linked (bridged) together across a > L3 backbone. > Any ideas or suggestions on how to do this ? > - bridging over a GRE tunnel ? > - L2TP ? > > > regards, > Geert > disclaimer : http://webservices.simac.be/disclaimer.htm > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:13 ART