Re: Carrier supporting carrier: Why not L2VPN?

Thanks, Marko. I was doing a little bit of reading on it and it does sound
like doing it at L3 can scale really well, but it just seems burdensome
from an administration and political point of view.

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com>wrote:

> CSC is relatively complex (not that much) initially, but scales
> incredibly well to large number of VPNs it can carry. For multipoint
> L2VPNs (VPLS),
> provisioning is rather intense for every VPN.
>
> --
> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S)
> Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM, John Neiberger <jneiberger_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm watching some videos for the SP track and I just started one on CSC
> > using L3VPN. It seems awfully complicated. I haven't even really gotten
> > into the configuration of it yet, so maybe I'll be able to answer my own
> > question shortly, but why not just use L2VPN for this? It seems like you
> > could accomplish basically the same thing with MPLS pseudowires or
> > something like that. Or maybe even VPLS or whatever. Not sure about that
> > since I haven't done VPLS yet. :-)
> >
> > So, what's the deal? What advantage does CSC via L3VPN bring that would
> > make it worth all the configuration hassle?
> >
> > Heck, why not just run MPLS over GRE?
> >
> > I'll keep watching the video and reading about it. There is probably some
> > huge advantage that I am completely missing. I'm a noob to some of this,
> so
> > go easy on me. :)
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Dec 29 2012 - 20:41:56 ART