CarrierClass 12/4/2012 | 9:16:23 PM
re: VPLS Standard Debated Following LRGÇÖs informative and accurate VPN report by Geoff Bennett/Daniel Proch last month, I find it extremely disappointing that they have gone on to publish such an inaccurate article.

LR: According to a recent Infonetics study, 32 percent of carriers are already offering virtual private LAN services.

By Virtual private LAN services are you referring to the IETF VPLS drafts? If so, which vendors are these carriers using then? As far as I am aware only Juniper, Riverstone and Foundry have any VPLS capabilities and these are not mature yet. So... are you saying that 32% of carriers have deployed MPLS networks with all Juniper/Foundry/Riverstone PE's and are offering customers VPLS services over networks running alpha/beta code??

LR: But the study found that carriers are deploying and plan to deploy more simple point-to-point Layer 2 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). These are VPNs that use Frame Relay or Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) as transport, instead of the Ethernet used in VPLS.

Point-to-point Layer 2 MPLS VPNs can be used to transport ATM, FR, AND Ethernet GÇô not instead of Ethernet.

LR: Fifty-three percent say they offer that service today, and 74 percent say they expect to be offering it by late 2003.

WHAT?? So 53% of carriers offer ATM and FR services over an MPLS network right now? Which carriers are these then and how do they price their ATM/FR *Like* services over MPLS compared with their existing ATM/FR services over their ATM/FR infrastructure?

FR: These results arenGÇÖt too surprising, on two fronts. For one, many carriers plan to continue leveraging their existing Frame Relay and ATM networks.

Well if they are offering ATM/FR services over MPLS how are they leveraging their existing FR and ATM networks? Unless you are suggesting that they are running MPLS over ATM and then offering ATM/FR over MPLS??? Or unless you mean they are using ATM/FR access links at the edge over an MPLS core probably running over SONET GÇô But is reusing ATM/FR access links the same as GÇÿleveraging their existing Frame Relay and ATM networksGÇÖ?

LR: The standards situation is a bit stickier when it comes to VPLS. Because Ethernet by nature is not point-to-point, Draft Martini alone is not sufficient.

Draft martini alone is not sufficient for what? There are two Martini drafts, one that deals with encapsulation and one that deals with transport. The VPLS drafts use the Martini draft for encapsulation anyway. If you are referring to the Martini transport draft what is it not sufficient at doing? It is more than sufficient for tunneling Ethernet traffic across an MPLS network using point-to-point links. Using this method the customer premises equipment is responsible for MAC address learning and it has the same scaling problem of any point-to-point topology where n sites requires ([n] [n GÇô 1]) / 2 links for full mesh connectivity. If a customer has a large number of sites and requires full mesh connectivity then yes VPLS is a more sensible approach.

Keeping up to date with whatGÇÖs going on with all the IETF drafts is difficult enough without inaccurate reports like this.

Very Disappointing.

gigeguy 12/4/2012 | 9:15:32 PM
re: VPLS Standard Debated I'm not a marketing guy, so I can't comment on the market share numbers. However, Marguerite accurately described the popularity of the Lasserre-VKompella draft for VPLS in the IETF.
Sign In