Monday, August 3, 2020

VPLS.US 05/23/2011 GLBX to add 40 sites

http://vpls.us/?p=682 Mon, 23 May 2011 21:49:37 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=682

Channel Partners Online announced Global Crossing Ltd. announced Monday it will expand its EtherSphere Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLS) to more than 40 new locations in the United States, Europe and China by the end of 2011.

That’s a huge expansion roughly 50% increase in locations covered by their existing EtherSphere product.]]>

.]]>

682
2011-05-23 14:49:37
2011-05-23 21:49:37
open
open
gblx-to-add-40-sites
publish
0
0
post

0


_edit_last



_wordbooker_extract

That's a huge ...]]>


_wordbooker_thumb



_wordbooker_options



http://vpls.us/?p=684 Fri, 27 May 2011 05:40:15 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=684


Looking out our window at South Point Casino

On the way, we got to drive “OVER the damn”. That’s the First time I had been on that road since they opened up the bridge. So I knew I was WAY high, but the way they designed the bridge??? I couldn’t see anything. :( The barricades were so high that all I saw was concrete.

Light Reading had sent me many messages, and told me about this new event that they were going to be hosting. Well Heavy Reading was going to sponsor this event concurrent with Interop. So I thought it’d be a good opportunity to hear what heavy reading had to say about cloud computing, get in a couple of vendor sponsored drinks, as well as see all the chaos on the Interop floor. You see I used to be a volunteer for the Interop, way back in 1998, when I worked for Kellogs, I helped the guys build the Interop network and the Noc. I also did customer demonstrations of this NEW pic that Cisco had come out with that allowed us to do VoIP over a 2600 series router, but that’s a whole other story, (One that includes how I met my wife)…

So, I expected this conference to have some heavy hitters, and it did kind of look like it was going to be a technical conference. You know, digging into some of the nuts and bolts of what the different vendors considered to be their cloud offering, and the different protocols and technology that they were using to accomplish this “Cloud thing”. That’s Heavy Readings Gig. Heavy Reading generally puts out very technical papers, that are researched in the industry, and then they charge companies money to read the papers.

Cisco, Juniper, Foundry where all presenting, and I think based upon the people presenting and manning the discussions, they could have gotten technical. HOWEVER, I think Light reading must have had too much influence over the discussions and the questions. This conference had to have been one of the most boiled down “soft” conventions that I’ve ever attended. Now I’ve attended IETF several times and MEF once or twice. I wasn’t even expecting it to be at the MEF level. Good thing I didn’t have my expectations set very high. They weren’t even met. Believe me I don’t consider the MEF to be technical either.


But I did get this cool book. I did get this cool book at Interop

So I guess one of the things that most confused me was even the lack of a definition of what some of the companies consider to be “cloud”. IMHO Cloud is kind of like Managed Services. Where a company can outsource EVERYTHING to the “cloud” or in other words outsource their “whatever’s” to the cloud. Infrastructure, communications, servers, applications, whatnot. It’s like a big Ethernet switch ;) You know I had to bring it back to the blog somehow.

I expected somebody to stand up and say what a cloud was, nobody really did. I guess it was Ken from foundry, who said it best. Years ago, when he went to talk with Network engineers about designs, they would always draw a big cloud on the whiteboard and then start hooking things to it. He said that’s when they started Cloud computing.

I kept waiting for the conversations to turn technical and it never did. I eventually got bored and left to explore the larger Interop show. Perhaps next time they’ll get more involved in the nuts and bolts? Or if it’s going to be the same old soft shoe I’ll probably skip these from now on.

Interop was good and I did have some drinks on the vendors. I also got to meet Dan Lynch who happened to be at one of the gatherings. Jeannie and I were about to leave and he came over trying to pick up my wife. :) Super nice guy. It was interesting to see him talk with Vincent Cerf at the Interop opening on Tuesday. Guess he’s got some history.

So, draw a VPLS network! I bet money you start by drawing a cloud.


My Business Card :)
]]>


684
2011-05-26 22:40:15
2011-05-27 05:40:15
open
open
interop-cloud-computing
publish
0
0
post

0


_edit_last



_wordbooker_thumb



http://vpls.us/?p=694 Sat, 28 May 2011 09:34:15 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=694

Packet loss can occur when the IGP and LDP aren’t synchronized. If the ISIS adjacency is established before the LDP then it will forward packets down a link that’s essentially a black hone. Or in the other case if the LDP session closes the PE could continue to forward packets at a black hole.

Of course Juniper says

This issue is especially significant for applications such as a core network that does not employ BGP.


  • Juniper

    ldp-synchronization {
    disable;
    hold-time seconds;
    }

  • Cisco

    Router(config)# router isis
    Router(config-router)# mpls ldp sync

Another useful tool in the pursuit of losses or “Carrier Grade” networks.

]]>

694
2011-05-28 02:34:15
2011-05-28 09:34:15
open
open
ldp-igp-sync
publish
0
0
post

0




_edit_last



_wordbooker_thumb



http://vpls.us/?p=704 Mon, 30 May 2011 15:36:11 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=704

And then I explained to him what I was thinking.


OTV over VPLS

Where all of OTV is a single location logically. If OTV site a sends a Ethernet Multicast Frame to the PE. If the PE is part of a VPLS network It’ll see the multicast MAC address and where it would normally do mac learning if it was MAC unicast packet, it won’t because it’s a well known multicast mac address.

So it would Broadcast the frame. Essentially negating any benefit that the OTV was providing. The VPLS would send the frame to both OTV(b) and OTV(c).

The mechanisms in place for VPLS to stop doing this are placed into snooping of the Multicast routing protocol. IGMP snooping and PIM snooping. However, OTV is using ISIS for signaling of traffic over the WAN, and isn’t using IGMP or PIM in the negotiation at all. This means the customer wouldn’t get any benefit from snooping. And he just lost his OTV benefit.

Cisco says in the future they will be able to support OTV without using Multicast. That would fix this problem, but until they support Unicast packets, I’m afraid OTV won’t be able to use L2VPNs for transport of the traffic.
]]>

704
2011-05-30 08:36:11
2011-05-30 15:36:11
open
open
otv-over-vpls
publish
0
0
post

0



_edit_last



_wordbooker_thumb



350

cjaggi@uebermeister.com
http://www.uebermeister.com
89.217.130.118
2011-05-30 12:48:45
2011-05-30 19:48:45

http://blog.ioshints.info/2011/04/vpls-versus-otv-for-l2-data-center.html]]>
1

0
0

akismet_result



akismet_history




351

thisisatest22@yahoo.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhawk
66.182.116.119
2011-05-31 09:24:58
2011-05-31 16:24:58

Anyway, with networks becoming more and more heterogeneous, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibilities to find someone wanting OTV not thinking about a VPLS portion of their network.]]>
1

0
0

akismet_result



akismet_history



akismet_history