Write the RFPs asking for L3 -- I don't think they're asking for L3.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: EPC backhaul networks
On Sun, Jan 30,
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>>> The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet
>>> handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible
I work for a MSO and while we do provide L2 services today for wireless
backhaul, the services are based on requirements from the wireless
providers and I haven't seen an RFP yet in which someone wanted a L3
service. If someone really wanted a L3VPN as a backhaul solution we could
oblige them but m
On 1/30/11 1:13 PM, Ping Pan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the
>> only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that
>> MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people don
Easier to troubleshoot is the main reason but also, you would not put the
MME/S-GW in every segment with the eNodeB anyways, so in the end you'd
really want a L3 routed solution between them. One of the things I've
seen is the L3 interface for the eNodeB terminates locally on an attached
smaller c
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the
> only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that
> MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even
> think of L3 solutions all the
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet
>> handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered
>> today.
>
> Ah.
>
> We either rent fibe
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of
Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service
offered today.
Ah.
We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different
problems in different m
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Ping Pan wrote:
Heard a lot about MPLS-TP to apply in this area. What do you think? Is
it for real?
MPLS-TP is great for SDH people, they don't have to learn anything new.
It's the new SDH, just packet based instead of TDM. Everything else pretty
much stays the same.
I
Heard a lot about MPLS-TP to apply in this area. What do you think? Is it
for real?
Thanks!
Ping
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2011 10:11 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >/
> >> There are just more compa
On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Glen Kent wrote:
>
>> I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2
>> VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs
>> for communication between the eNodeB
On Jan 30, 2011 10:11 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>/
>> There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul
space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach
required
>
>
> Could you please elaborate on what
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul
space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach
required
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "reach" here?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Glen Kent wrote:
I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2
VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3
VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW, so why is
it that most providers prefer L3 over
On Jan 30, 2011 9:03 AM, "Glen Kent" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over
> L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and
> layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW,
> so why is it that most provi
15 matches
Mail list logo
