The MPLS WG Archive

["Raj Jakkampudi" <raj_jakkampudi1@hotmail.com>]

Hi Vijay,

I'm somewhat leary about entering into this debate but ... At the one 
promising ISP that both of us worked at, not all routers carried the full 
Internet routing table (or all edges aren't the same). In particular, the 
routers servicing the dial access and the DSL networks did not carry the 
full routing table. I would also say that there were other specialized 
routers in the network e.g. the peering routers, the dedicated customer 
routers, and the multicast routers. It does not seem inconceivable to me 
that they would not have used specialized routers to provide VPN solutions 
especially if the solutions were needed to scale or had special business 
requiremnets (e.g. management or troubleshooting). In fact with that type of 
solution the scaling of the VPN network could be independant of the scaling 
of the rest of the network.

thanks,
/Raj



>From: Vijay Gill <vijay@umbc.edu>
>To: mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: Re: VPN solution - White flag ?
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:04:04 -0400
>
>
>[ folks, it doesn't hurt to trim headers ]
>
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Eric Rosen wrote:
>
> > Randy> if an enterprise wanting to deploy it is not an isp, then they'll
> > Randy> need their own layer 1 or2 connectivity between all endpoints.
> >
> > Just to be  clear, you are saying  that, to the best of  your knowledge, 
>all
> > networks fall into one of the following two categories:
> >
> > 1. needs to carry all Internet routes to every edge
>
>Having worked at one or two promising local ISPs, I assure you that the
>plan of deploying two routers where one will do (and where one is just to
>aggregate VPN customers) is something that will not fly very well.
>
>This of course leads to a realistic scenario where you have the minimum
>number of routers necessary to satisfy the business need at the edge and
>since a couple of customers insist on having full routes, well....
>
>I suspect this is where Randy is coming from. Given that routers _barely_
>work as it is, we'd much rather wish this additional problem onto someone
>else than have it sit in the ISP core, where routers crashing lead to SLA
>violations and asosciated pain.
>
> > 2. needs complete mesh of layer 2 connections between all endpoints.
> >
> > I had no  idea that all networks  fell into one of these  two 
>categories!  I
> > don't know how I missed that ;-)
>
>Just most _realistic_ ISP networks fall into case 1.
>
>/vijay
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.