Re: Recent operational experience choosing between PBB-TE, MEF9+14, VPLS or T-MPLS ?

[Francois Menard <francois () menards ca>]

So if T-MPLS is a look-out for trouble, for much-bigger-than-metropolitan network architectures, I am down to 3 choices.

Let's assume PBB-TE is not yet widely implemented and let's assume that there are few automated provisioning interfaces 
designed for MEF9+14 equipment, then it doesn't leave much other choice but VPLS does it not ?

F.

On 2010-11-13, at 5:38 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:30:19 -0500
> Francois Menard <francois () menards ca> wrote:
>
> > I'm embarking on a new project which involves a large scale MAN network where ultimately, the objective is to carry 
> > QinQ, while at the same time delivering services over IPv6.
> >
> > The objective is to support jumbo frames on all interfaces, at least to carry QinQ standard-size ethernet frames, 
> > but ideally as large as possible
> >
> > There seem to be 4 approaches to do this.
> >
> > a) The IEEE PBB-TE approach - but little implementations.
> > b) The MEF9+14 approach, mature, but manual provisioning
> > c) The VPLS approach, concerns with too much manual provisioning.
> > d) The T-MPLS approach, concerns with maturity
> >
> > The objective is to support the functionality not only in the CORE, but also on cost effective multi-tenant & 
> > redundant customer CPEs.
> >
> > I have not seen a, or b or d supported in a low-cost customer CPE.
> >
> > I am currently favouring c, for reasons of maturity and wide implementation, but may be missing on recent progresses 
> > in the b) land.
> >
> > Any thoughts ?
> >
> > Any published IETF material on the topic ?
>
> I'd avoid T-MPLS - 
>
> "Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful"
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5704
>
> Regards,
> Mark.