So if T-MPLS is a look-out for trouble, for much-bigger-than-metropolitan network architectures, I am down to 3 choices.
Let's assume PBB-TE is not yet widely implemented and let's assume that there are few automated provisioning interfaces designed for MEF9+14 equipment, then it doesn't leave much other choice but VPLS does it not ? F. On 2010-11-13, at 5:38 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:30:19 -0500 > Francois Menard <franc...@menards.ca> wrote: > >> I'm embarking on a new project which involves a large scale MAN network >> where ultimately, the objective is to carry QinQ, while at the same time >> delivering services over IPv6. >> >> The objective is to support jumbo frames on all interfaces, at least to >> carry QinQ standard-size ethernet frames, but ideally as large as possible >> >> There seem to be 4 approaches to do this. >> >> a) The IEEE PBB-TE approach - but little implementations. >> b) The MEF9+14 approach, mature, but manual provisioning >> c) The VPLS approach, concerns with too much manual provisioning. >> d) The T-MPLS approach, concerns with maturity >> >> The objective is to support the functionality not only in the CORE, but also >> on cost effective multi-tenant & redundant customer CPEs. >> >> I have not seen a, or b or d supported in a low-cost customer CPE. >> >> I am currently favouring c, for reasons of maturity and wide implementation, >> but may be missing on recent progresses in the b) land. >> >> Any thoughts ? >> >> Any published IETF material on the topic ? >> > > I'd avoid T-MPLS - > > "Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful" > > http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5704 > > Regards, > Mark.
