nanog mailing list archives
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:15:04 +0200
On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packets over any reasonable topology out of the box (without the burden and cost implications of VPLS).
I'm not sure what the burden refers to, but cost implications to me seem same, trident HW can do VPLS.
From complexity POV, I don't expect much different development time to write
functioning control-plane to either. I'm not against Trill, I think Trill, and especially SPB-M are great, now they just feel too little and 20 years too late. There was no particular reason why SPB-M couldn't have existed 20 years ago in HW. But perhaps it's good it didn't, it might have made ethernet 'good enough', that selling MPLS might have been much more difficult. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP, (continued)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Mark Tinka (Jan 13)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Chuck Anderson (Jan 15)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Stephen R. Carter (Jan 13)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Richard Hartmann (Jan 15)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Stephen R. Carter (Jan 15)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Martin Hannigan (Jan 12)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Saku Ytti (Jan 17)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Marian Ďurkovič (Jan 19)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Nick Hilliard (Jan 19)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Phil Bedard (Jan 19)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Marian Ďurkovič (Jan 20)
- Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP Phil Bedard (Jan 20)