Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: it's here

  • From: Jon Stanley
  • Date: Thu Feb 14 01:35:56 2002

Hmm - who said they had to be physically separate?  Being a layer 2 centric
network has allowed us to extend device management functionality to not only
the core, but also straight out to the edge CPE equipment - every piece of
(non-legacy) CPE that we have has a 1918 address on it that the customer
cannot see.

The only incremental cost is the management of the management network -
almost minimal, as the IP tracking scheme that we have extends nicely into
the /32 range.  There is also the required bandwidth, and the need for
additional PVC's to the customer prem (these are 64k UBR PVC's) - again,
minimal when you own the layer 2 network.

Just my 2 cents.

PS - these views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my
employer.

-----Original Message-----
From: jlewis@lewis.org [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:56 AM
To: jerry scharf
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: it's here


sites) spanning multiple states or countries.  Not everyone can afford to
build both a backbone and a separate management WAN.  Putting management
in 1918 space is ok at one location, but gets tricky on a large network.
Do we then also buy/maintain VPN hardware to connect all the various 1918
management networks to the NOC?




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.