nanog mailing list archives
Re: BFD for long haul circuit
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 18:10:36 +0200
On 18/Jul/20 15:31, adamv0025 () netconsultings com wrote:
Well luckily we have MEF to set expectations about ones EPL/EVPL/EPLAN/EVPLAN performance. (and formal SLA contracts describing every single aspect of the service and its performance). Anyways, when I was designing these the back in the days when it was cool and demand was high, customers (other carriers) were getting MTU9100 (to fit customers MTU9000), the whole CFM & LFM shebang (to the point made earlier in the thread that the link should go down on both ends -like it’s the case with a wave) and sub 50ms convergence in case something when wrong inside our backbone. We as a provider got more $$$ from single investment to our wave/fiber, but our customers could enjoy p2p links on par with wave for less $.
It's probably worth noting that easily 90% of all remote peering circuits are running over an EoMPLS service, FWIW. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit, (continued)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Mark Tinka (Jul 16)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Robert Raszuk (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Tom Hill (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Nick Hilliard (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Tom Hill (Jul 17)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- RE: BFD for long haul circuit adamv0025 (Jul 18)
- Re: BFD for long haul circuit Mark Tinka (Jul 18)