+100 Regards, Jeff
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Rob Shakir <r...@rob.sh> wrote: > > >> On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tants...@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support "not on lsp" flag >> (different implementation have different names for it) >> There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are many >> reasons to still run commercial code base, mostly feature set and resilience. > > And test coverage. As Saku alluded to earlier in the thread, rr<->rr-client > outages are painful. I’ve certainly seen a number of them caused by inter-op > issues between implementations. Running at least one RR which matches the > code-base of the client means that at least you’re likely to have fallen > within the test-cases of that vendor’s implementation. > > r.
