nanog mailing list archives
Re: MLPPP over MPLS
From: Hyunseog Ryu <r.hyunseog () ieee org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:36:16 -0600
Maybe next monday I can ask for detailed info, but I wasn't on the meeting to discuss this in detail. Based on outcome of discussion with Cisco, we decided to go with MLFR instead of MLPPP. Hyun Jon R. Kibler wrote:
Hyunseog Ryu wrote:What I heard from Cisco is that there may be some issue with MLPPP and MPLS - maybe QoS? -. The issue is for general IOS support issue for MLPPP/MPLS combination. For that reason, Cisco recommended Multi-link Frame Relay(MLFR) to overcome that issue. HyunHyun, Would you happen to have a source for additional information as to exactly what the problem may be? THANKS! Jon Kibler
Current thread:
- MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon Lewis (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Brent A O'Keeffe (Feb 20)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jason Frisvold (Feb 18)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Bill Stewart (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Rodney Dunn (Feb 22)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon Lewis (Feb 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: MLPPP over MPLS Erik Amundson (Feb 17)
- RE: MLPPP over MPLS Peering (Feb 20)