Thanks for your advice David. Your point is very well received. One of the design requirements for our VPN solution will be the ability to allow customers to use non-IP protocols. I don't think RFC2547bis will work for this. However if we do go the MPLS route then RFC2547bis will be available as a product as well as Layer 2 VPNs. That's definitely a benefit. -----Original Message----- From: David Bigge [mailto:david.bigge@giftofsite.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:56 AM To: Mike Bernico; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS Mike, An unsupported standard might as well not be a standard. I would lean towards the most openly supported standard- MPLS. Along with not letting one vendor bend you over the barrel, this openess also flushes out any problems for a more stable long-term network. You don't talk about 2547bis VPNs. Are you considering that also? We use a competitor of Cisco's equipment so I am biased. My 2 cent. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Bernico" <mbernico@illinois.net> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: Seeking Advice: L2TPv3 vs. Martini Draft MPLS

All,

I'm currently comparing these two technologies in an effort to offer a Layer 2 VPN service on our backbone. Our network is currently not

enabled. Below is what I perceive as the pros and cons of each technology. If anyone has thoughts on or experience with either one of these protocols I'd like to hear your opinion.

Thanks

Mike

Martini VPN

Pro ---- Supports MPLS TE for each VPN, making it more PVCish Enabling MPLS would open up the "MPLS tool box" for other services

MPLS like

L3 VPNs and TE

Con --- Enabling MPLS is a huge change Changing the forwarding paradigm in the network exposes us to new and interesting bugs and stability issues

L2TPv3 VPN

Pro --- Doesn't require MPLS/Much smaller change

Con ---- Although standard, only supported by Cisco currently (I think) Requires special tunneling card in GSR routers.