x
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
macster 12/5/2012 | 3:01:24 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT Why the PBB (802.1ah) comparison with PBT (802.1aq)?

Both PBB and PBT will be able to co-exist on the same kit - we can set the VLAN ranges for PBT.

???
dask 12/5/2012 | 3:01:23 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT > Do you need any control-plane equipment for PBB? None

Hmm, ...maybe you don't need special control-plane equipment for PBB but you do need control-plane such as STP for it, much like you need it for PB/QiQ.
macster 12/5/2012 | 3:01:20 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT macster: "Why the PBB (802.1ah) comparison with PBT (802.1aq)? Both PBB and PBT will be able to co-exist on the same kit - we can set the VLAN ranges for PBT."

Exactly! So you agree that hardware/fabric for both PBB and PBT is practically the same. Hence, no difference in price. Do you need any control-plane equipment for PBB? None. Do you need a costly control-plane equipment for PBT? -Yesss. Sum that up.

tata, T.

=====================

Sum this up!

PBB is not conection-oriented. PBT is. T-MPLS is. Both will need a control plane - this is where the comparison needs to be done!!!
t.bogataj 12/5/2012 | 3:01:20 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT dask: "...maybe you don't need special control-plane equipment for PBB but you do need control-plane such as STP for it..."

Agree. Yet the main (functional) difference between PBB and PBT is the absence of control plane mechanisms in the latter. No active learning; no active topology protocols like xSTP... not to mention multicasting support.

In PBB transport equipment, a control plane is already built-in.

Clearly, provisioning is the key for PBT. But it is offloaded to an abstract and costly piece of external hardware.

T.
t.bogataj 12/5/2012 | 3:01:18 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT Welcome, M.V.! Thought you'd never join... :)
t.bogataj 12/5/2012 | 3:01:18 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT macster: "Sum this up!"

I did, several times. Whichever way I did it, I got the same answer: 42. (Well, what else could it be?)

OK, seriously. T-MPLS comes with control plane. PBB has it built-in. With PBT -- pay extra for it.

Who can save with PBT? Perhaps... big incumbents, who can keep their SDH/SONET mindset, and the way they operate their networks? Only faking a transition to IP (or NGN or whatever you call it)? Yes, it can be appealing to them. But not for the cost of PBT itself, rather for the whole calculation.

tata, T.
mvissers 12/5/2012 | 3:01:18 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT PBB requires a lot of configuration to get any service up and running. PBB is the first ethernet network with two layers: backbone service and B-VLAN (i.e. a tunnel layer).

Each PBB network domain contains a few B-VLANs which you need to set up on top of a MSTP environment (which requires configuration itself). Each B-VLAN can have hundred or more end points, which need to be configured before MVRP can register the B-VLAN within the PBB network domain.

Once the B-VLANs are up, individual service instances can be added. This requires manual configuration per service instance of S-VID to I-SID relationships in the I-BEB nodes and manual configuration of I-SID to B-VID relationships in the B-BEB nodes. Inter-domain services may also require the configuration of I-SID Translation in B-BEB nodes. Without this configuration there is no service.

To limit flooding in the B-VLAN, MMRP must register either for every multipoint service instance a service instance specific group address, or the provider must configure a specific group address shared by multiple service instances. The latter requires that MAC Address Translation is configured in B-BEB nodes for such service instance.

PBB backbone service layer does not have a control plane and requires manual configuration of every service instance in the I-BEB and B-BEB nodes.
macster 12/5/2012 | 3:01:17 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT t.bog,

I am not going to comment on cost savings - as mentioned in a previous article.

What I wanted to point out is that we cannot compare PBT with PBB. That's like comparing a motorcycle with a car. True, both gets us from point A to B, but such a comparison beggars disbelief!
macster 12/5/2012 | 3:01:17 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT PBB requires a lot of configuration to get any service up and running. PBB is the first ethernet network with two layers: backbone service and B-VLAN (i.e. a tunnel layer).

=================================================
Response:
Ethernet's flat hierarchy required improvement. VLANs (802.1q) brought about a 2-layer hierarchy.

Q-in-Q (802.1ad) and (MAC-in-MAC) made this a THREE layer hierarchy.



=================================================

Each PBB network domain contains a few B-VLANs which you need to set up on top of a MSTP environment .....
=================================================
Response:
You do not need an MSTP/MSPP in a PBB environment!!!


I earnestly ask request that you go and read up on this topic before posting... did not bother reading further...
macster 12/5/2012 | 3:01:15 PM
re: Vendors Clash Over PBT Agreed. Re-visited your earlier post and read it whole.

At first pass, thought MSTP to mean smtg else - apologies...
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE