Talk:Metro Ethernet/Archive 1

Early comment
I checked this page today, and thought that I could improve it. I'm a network specialist, with focus on Metro Ethernet since 2000. The text I wrote reflect my own experience. The book given as a reference (by Sam Halabi) also cover most of the topics. I also have a lot of personal, practical experience on how to design and operate a Metro Ethernet; unfortunately, there's little (if any) material published on this topic. One problem is that most references available today are from vendors, which makes them (like it or not) slightly biased. I'll try to find more independent references to add to this article later. CarlosRibeiro 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ınternet is not a wan
In the article internet is referred to as a wan. Rather, internet is a collection of wans and lans glued together by routers. 78.184.2.105 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)mehmet

I Disagree: VPLS is a subset of Carrier Ethernet
No, VPLS is a technology that is applied to create a Ethernet service also called a Carrier Ethernet Service. However that doesn't make them one and the same. VPLS or Virtual private LAN service could also be added to by PBB or EoS or EoATM or EoPPP or QnQ, 802.1ah, 802.1ad, or any other number of architectures to create "Carrier Ethernet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.105.37 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages of P2P, P2MP and MP2MP (aka VPLAN, any-to-any, E-LAN)
We recently selected MetroEthernet to connect together 4 sites in a Metropolitian area.

When given the choice of either Point to MultiPoint (MP2P) or any-to-any (MP2MP), I chose any-to-any as it apparently seemed to provide resiliance in case of a power cut when the main site suffered a major power or network failure (with MP2P, it appears that the main site would act as the hub and the other sites as the spokes, and all traffic would need to be routed via the main site).

The service is currently being installed, it has taken a lot longer to get installed than we had expected, but that is another story.

But now I am wondering about the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two topologies. I saw a table online which showed what applications are suitable for each and there was no tick against using Voice with MP2MP.

What impact does chossing any-to-any have on:


 * Latency?
 * Jitter?
 * Potential for bottlekneck on the providers MetroEthernet?
 * Reliability?
 * Dropped packets?

Cost?

Also, we were going to choose 100Mbit at each site, but we were worried about a potential bottlekneck at the site where the main servers are located, so we chose 300Mbit at that site.

But I noticed on a diagram of the any-to-any service, it said "No aggregation required any any site".

Finally, there seems to be very little information out there on the net about MetroEthernet. I appreciate that there is the MetroEthernet forum, but this is owned by the providers, so therefore might not provide a completely balanced view of the technology.

Thank you, Bruce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.39.186 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The merge discussion has been moved to Talk:Carrier Ethernet. Please make further comments there. --KarlB (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)