yes
From: Jason Lixfeld
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:06 PM
To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Cc: Mohammad Khalil ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
Hi Adam,
On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:28 AM, mailto:adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Hi Adam,
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:28 AM,
> wrote:
>
> -Type-1 RDs will help you simulate full-mesh.
By “Type-1 RD”, are you referring to a unique RD per PE?
I seem to remember there were some good old (really old now) books on BGP
discussing various design aspects of BGP infrastructure including
topology-based or address-based route reflection, etc...
Topology-based doesn’t need to mean in-path you can still have a whole fleet of
out-of-the-path RR
On 14/Feb/19 17:02, Aaron Gould wrote:
> To not get off-topic too much, since you mentioned MX204, please tell me, do
> you know if it is a nice MPLS P/PE box ? If so, is it quite capable in its
> ability to do L3 VPN's, L2 VPN's (l2circuit mainly, but also curious of vpls,
> evpn).
We've
interface (unit) level to limit traffic for
obviously what they buy.
MX204 be good for that ?
Thanks Mark
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:09 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP topological
On 14/Feb/19 14:04, Alain Hebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unlucky as always, we had issues with the chassis of a MX104 about
> every years since we installed.
Are you using the MX104 as a route reflector? If so, make one of the
VM's your alternative for this function :-).
If you're not doing a
Hi,
Unlucky as always, we had issues with the chassis of a MX104 about
every years since we installed.
I thinking the vibration from the train track above our location
might be having an effect on connectors in those chassis, but we never
got a "autopsy" report back from JNP abou
On 13/Feb/19 20:00, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> Main advantage of out-of-path is that you decouple FIB and RIB scaling
> requirements and feature requirements. Your backbone device does not
> need to be qualified for large RIB or BGP at all. And when you do need
> more RIB scaling, you can upgrade out
Hey,
in-band, out-of-band is bit of misnomers to me. You mean in-path or out-of-path.
Main advantage of out-of-path is that you decouple FIB and RIB scaling
requirements and feature requirements. Your backbone device does not
need to be qualified for large RIB or BGP at all. And when you do need
9 matches
Mail list logo
