nanog mailing list archives
Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport
From: Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:14:22 -0700
Or a very reckless oversubscription ratio and misjudgment of the customer, example, if a provider had 2 x 100GbE capacity between two locations and sold a customer a 100GbE EoMPLS transport circuit from A to Z, based on the mistaken idea of "Well these guys probably aren't going to peak more than 35Gbps of traffic at any time in the near future....". Frightening. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
On 24/May/16 06:29, Rob Laidlaw wrote:Yes. Many vendors are using l2vpn/pseudo-wire services of one sort or another to provide circuits and most do not transport LACP by default.To the OP's case, commercially, I'd find it interesting to transport a 100Gbps circuit as EoMPLS rather than EoDWDM, considering the amount of bandwidth one would need to throw at an IP/MPLS network to transport 100Gbps effectively... Mark.
Current thread:
- LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG (May 23)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Colton Conor (May 23)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Jared Mauch (May 23)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Mark Tinka (May 23)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Rob Laidlaw (May 24)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Mark Tinka (May 24)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Eric Kuhnke (May 24)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Mark Tinka (May 24)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Jared Mauch (May 23)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Colton Conor (May 23)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG (May 24)
- Re: LACP Frames / Level3 Transport Eygene Ryabinkin (May 24)