Re: Restrictions on Ethernet L2 circuits?

[sthaug () nethelp no]

> > Or should the service provider implement port security and limit the
> > number of MAC addresses on the access ports, forcing the customer to
> > connect a router in both ends and segment their network?
>
> That would make the service less attractive, and also more complex to
> set up and maintain.  For point-to-point service, there is really no
> reason for the network to care about customers' MAC addresses, VLAN tags
> and such.

*If* the customer connects directly to a router which terminates
EoMPLS, I agree. But router ports are usually expensive, which
often means that the customer connects to a switch. And switches
definitely care about MAC addresses.

> Couldn't PBB or even Q-in-Q provide that isolation as well, at least for
> point-to-point services? I must say that I don't personally have much
> experience with those, because we tend to connect our customers to
> EoMPLS-capable routers directly.

QinQ does nothing to reduce the number of MAC addresses required.
PBB can do this, but there is still not a lot of  PBB equipment
available.

> > Also, do you see a demand for multi-point layer 2 networks (requiring
> > VPLS), or are point-to-point layer 2 circuits sufficient to meet
> > market demand?
>
> That's a big question for us right now... we're not sure yet.  I'd like to
> hear others' opinions on this.

There is some demand there. Whether that makes it worth it implementing
as a product is another question. Trouybleshooting multipoint is more
difficult than troubleshooting point to point circuits.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no