Metro Ethernet has evolved to use Ethernet as a transport protocol over both local and wide area networks. It provides standardized services like E-Line, E-Lan, and E-Tree, which define point-to-point and multipoint Ethernet virtual connections. This document requires a paper comparing MEF-based L2-VPN services to MPLS-based L2-VPN (VPLS) in terms of limitations, complexities, and traffic engineering capabilities using PBB-TE and MPLS-TE. The paper should include diagrams and references and will be graded based on the comparison of the two approaches, comparison of PBB-TE and MPLS-TE, use of diagrams, and citations.

1. Metro Ethernet
Ethernet has been widely deployed around the world in Local
Area Networks (LAN) until now. Native Ethernet packet data
increase over the LAN and Wide/Metropolitan Area Networks
(WAN/MAN) has resulted in strong standardization efforts to
use Ethernet as transport protocol. Metro Ethernet has evolved
with the following attributes: standardized services, scalability,
reliability, QoS, and service management.
MEF has defined several services:
• E-Line: Ethernet service that is based on a Point-to Point
Ethernet Virtual Connection
• E-Lan: Ethernet service that is based on a Multipoint-to-
Multipoint Ethernet Virtual Connection
• E-Tree: Ethernet service that is based on a Rooted Multipoint
Ethernet Virtual Connection
In this paper you are required to compare the delivery of L2-
VPN services over MEF based service definitions with MPLS
based L2-VPN (VPLS). Your paper should consider the
limitations and complexities of both approaches. The delivery
of traffic engineering should also be covered and you are
required to demonstrate and understanding of how TE is made
possible using PBB-TE and MPLS-TE.
Grading will be done as follows:
Comparison on MEF based L2-VPN services and MPLS VPLS
(30%)
Comparison on PBB-TE and MPLS-TE in terms of provisioning
and complexity (30%)
Appropriate use of schematics (20%)
Citing of reference material (20%)
5 pages