Hi, I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW, so why is it that most providers prefer L3 over L2. Glen
On Jan 30, 2011 9:03 AM, "Glen Kent" <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW, so why is it that most providers prefer L3 over L2.
There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach required Cb
Glen
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach required
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "reach" here? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Jan 30, 2011 10:11 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: /
There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul
space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach required
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "reach" here?
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Heard a lot about MPLS-TP to apply in this area. What do you think? Is it for real? Thanks! Ping On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2011 10:11 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: /
There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul
space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach required
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "reach" here?
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Ping Pan wrote:
Heard a lot about MPLS-TP to apply in this area. What do you think? Is it for real?
MPLS-TP is great for SDH people, they don't have to learn anything new. It's the new SDH, just packet based instead of TDM. Everything else pretty much stays the same. I'm sure this is very popular in some circles, I'm not a fan though. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
Ah. We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different problems in different markets. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
Ah.
We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different problems in different markets.
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ... Cameron
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ...
Curious, do you think this will last? Thought LTE is all-IP. Why is there a need for L2 other than raw bandwidth from Ethernet links? Thanks! Ping
On 1/30/11 1:13 PM, Ping Pan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ...
Curious, do you think this will last? Thought LTE is all-IP. Why is there a need for L2 other than raw bandwidth from Ethernet links?
They're talking backhaul between the node-b base-stations and the radio network controller... All the traffic from the handsets is encapsulated between those two points so it's link and network layer agnostic.
Thanks!
Ping
I work for a MSO and while we do provide L2 services today for wireless backhaul, the services are based on requirements from the wireless providers and I haven't seen an RFP yet in which someone wanted a L3 service. If someone really wanted a L3VPN as a backhaul solution we could oblige them but most do not want us having anything to do with their L3 network so we provide VPLS and P2P services. I'm always wary when I see a wireless provider wanting to build a 500 site VPLS to carry traffic and we try to discourage them as much as possible, but it happens... Phil On 1/30/11 3:55 PM, "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
Ah.
We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different problems in different markets.
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ...
Cameron
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
Ah.
We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different problems in different markets.
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ...
Cameron
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
I know some people that are starting to refer to it as the Meth Forum. Owen
Write the RFPs asking for L3 -- I don't think they're asking for L3. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:55 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: EPC backhaul networks On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered today.
Ah.
We either rent fiber or put up our own radio links, I guess different problems in different markets.
Yep. I hate L2. It is a total nightmare. But, it is literally the only game in town. I blame the MEF for spreading propaganda that MetroEis the best solution for backhaul ... most people dont even think of L3 solutions.... all the telcos, cable-cos, and utilities in this space only do L2 to the cell site.... even though they all use the same Juniper and ALU gear that does L3 too ... Cameron
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Glen Kent wrote:
I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW, so why is it that most providers prefer L3 over L2.
Becuase the lessons learnt in the last 30 years or so of networking is that large L2 domains are considered harmful. If you subnet them down in different vlans, it means for every new vlan you need to configure something on the MME/SGW. It's just easier and safer to break it down into smaller L3 domains that you route between. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Glen Kent wrote:
I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW, so why is it that most providers prefer L3 over L2.
Becuase the lessons learnt in the last 30 years or so of networking is that large L2 domains are considered harmful. If you subnet them down in different vlans, it means for every new vlan you need to configure something on the MME/SGW.
It's just easier and safer to break it down into smaller L3 domains that you route between.
It's also easier to troubleshoot when something goes boom. Owen
Easier to troubleshoot is the main reason but also, you would not put the MME/S-GW in every segment with the eNodeB anyways, so in the end you'd really want a L3 routed solution between them. One of the things I've seen is the L3 interface for the eNodeB terminates locally on an attached smaller cell-site router via a /30 and is not part of a larger L2 service with many eNodeBs in the same broadcast domain. You can run into scale issues with L3 as well with a router at every cell site and dynamic routing, so usually it's some kind of hybrid solution. Most service providers who provide backhaul services for wireless providers do so over a L2 or PW over MPLS network. Some of the smaller ALU, etc. cell site routers have started to support L3VPN so maybe L3VPN will be a service offering in the future with all-IP EPCs. Phil On 1/30/11 12:02 PM, "Glen Kent" <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW, so why is it that most providers prefer L3 over L2.
Glen
participants (8)
-
Cameron Byrne -
Frank Bulk -
Glen Kent -
Joel Jaeggli -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Owen DeLong -
Phil Bedard -
Ping Pan