DLSw+ performance adequate on DSL?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Doug Simpson, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. Doug Simpson

    Doug Simpson Guest

    We have a brand new MPLS VPN network from a major provider. We then
    resell these VPNs (VRFs) to our customers.

    We are considering rolling out 300 to 600 legacy SNA/SDLC sites via
    DLSw+ over MPLS/IP. Provider would manage the entire package,
    including both core and edge DLSw+ peer routers. A single MPLS VPN
    (VRF) would be used for the entire DLSw+ network. In all that
    follows, therefore, just read "MPLS" as "IP."

    To speed this migration, we are considering using a null modem serial
    cable to connect the edge router directly to the IBM controller at
    each site. This is an interim step to be followed by slower-paced
    conversion to IP LAN at each site.

    Most customers at these sites are poor government agencies who are
    salivating at the lower cost and higher bandwidth of DSL. Most
    agencies care less about SLA than price/bandwidth. No doubt they will
    change their tune at trouble-time.

    Provider is recommending against DSL for DLSw+ because of latency and
    reliability concerns. They also mentioned the tendency of some
    provider's DSL to timeout during zero traffic conditions. Provider
    says this might cause chronic DLSw+ session drops, though I would
    think that DLSw+ hello packets would prevent zero traffic conditions.

    Provider is concerned about sites that might limp along with existing
    but poor SNA service because of DLSw+ session issues. Stealth
    troubles are indeed bad news and we want to make sure we avoid them.

    Provider recommends a 64K frame circuit to each site. Frame is a
    comfort factor for provider. DSL connection is at arm's length to
    MPLS network, but frame comes straight into the provider's MPLS PE
    router. Problem is that 64K is twice the cost and a fraction of the
    bandwidth of DSL. 64K is ample for SNA traffic, but would need to be
    increased with the advent of IP and real applications.

    With sufficient testing and planning, can DSL serve as an adequate
    transport for DLSw+ at the scale of 300 to 600 sites?

    Options considered:

    o Limit DSL to native IP (tn3270).
    Offer DLSw+ only on 64K frame circuits.

    o Scale up DLSw+/DSL in careful, stepwise pilots.
    Switch trouble sites to 64K frame.

    Vendor uses a mix of Cisco and Juniper in the core and all Cisco at
    the edge. All DLSw+ routers would be Cisco.

    Advice and anecdotes are welcome!

    Doug Simpson
    Network Design Engineer
     
    Doug Simpson, Oct 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doug Simpson

    stephen Guest

    "Doug Simpson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > We have a brand new MPLS VPN network from a major provider. We then
    > resell these VPNs (VRFs) to our customers.
    >
    > We are considering rolling out 300 to 600 legacy SNA/SDLC sites via
    > DLSw+ over MPLS/IP. Provider would manage the entire package,
    > including both core and edge DLSw+ peer routers. A single MPLS VPN
    > (VRF) would be used for the entire DLSw+ network. In all that
    > follows, therefore, just read "MPLS" as "IP."
    >
    > To speed this migration, we are considering using a null modem serial
    > cable to connect the edge router directly to the IBM controller at
    > each site. This is an interim step to be followed by slower-paced
    > conversion to IP LAN at each site.
    >
    > Most customers at these sites are poor government agencies who are
    > salivating at the lower cost and higher bandwidth of DSL. Most
    > agencies care less about SLA than price/bandwidth. No doubt they will
    > change their tune at trouble-time.
    >
    > Provider is recommending against DSL for DLSw+ because of latency and
    > reliability concerns. They also mentioned the tendency of some
    > provider's DSL to timeout during zero traffic conditions. Provider
    > says this might cause chronic DLSw+ session drops, though I would
    > think that DLSw+ hello packets would prevent zero traffic conditions.
    >
    > Provider is concerned about sites that might limp along with existing
    > but poor SNA service because of DLSw+ session issues. Stealth
    > troubles are indeed bad news and we want to make sure we avoid them.
    >
    > Provider recommends a 64K frame circuit to each site. Frame is a
    > comfort factor for provider. DSL connection is at arm's length to
    > MPLS network, but frame comes straight into the provider's MPLS PE
    > router. Problem is that 64K is twice the cost and a fraction of the
    > bandwidth of DSL. 64K is ample for SNA traffic, but would need to be
    > increased with the advent of IP and real applications.


    i have recently looked at a network using both frame and DSL where there is
    DLSw / SDLC to a local device.

    512k ADSL works better than Frame - the higher speed links lower
    serialisation delay compensates for the latency through the DSL / ATM
    network.

    however this is private DSL - ADSL is used as an access line rather than for
    an internet feed with IPsec style VPN.

    most of the scaling issues seem to occur with central DLSw engines - use
    some meaty routers here, allow for backups, and limit the number of peers.

    email me offline if you want to discuss.

    i strongly suggest you ask for QoS for the DSLw with either solution.
    >
    > With sufficient testing and planning, can DSL serve as an adequate
    > transport for DLSw+ at the scale of 300 to 600 sites?


    Yes - so long as the DSL is predictable and you control the traffic to some
    extent.
    >
    > Options considered:
    >
    > o Limit DSL to native IP (tn3270).
    > Offer DLSw+ only on 64K frame circuits.
    >
    > o Scale up DLSw+/DSL in careful, stepwise pilots.
    > Switch trouble sites to 64K frame.


    you may end up with some locations where you cant get ADSL, so you need a
    backstop anyway.

    >
    > Vendor uses a mix of Cisco and Juniper in the core and all Cisco at
    > the edge. All DLSw+ routers would be Cisco.
    >
    > Advice and anecdotes are welcome!
    >
    > Doug Simpson
    > Network Design Engineer

    --
    Regards

    Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
     
    stephen, Oct 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. pickle
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,139
    Noel Paton
    Dec 17, 2004
  2. Babel17delany

    Is Grisoft AVG FREE adequate protection for my system?

    Babel17delany, Apr 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,377
    Winged
    May 20, 2005
  3. malcom

    computer adequate?

    malcom, May 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    879
  4. jim
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    457
  5. jim

    Adequate supply. Super classic apparel sale

    jim, Nov 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    323
Loading...

Share This Page