On 11/Oct/18 15:56, James Bensley wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> What makes you think there would be a difference in time to load eBGP learned
> routes vs. iBGP learned routes? Something from personal experience?
>
> Am I being naive here, I'd expect them to be the same? An UPDATE from an eBGP
> or iBGP peer could contain the same NLRI with all of the same attributes so I
> would expect them to pass through the same pipe line of BGP parsing and
> processing code?
Depends on the capabilities of the other peer.
For us in iBGP, the CSR1000v is mega quick, we can load a full IPv4
table in less than a minute. I've not seen the same performance from
eBGP sessions, even when latency and bandwidth are not an issue.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
