That mirrors my thinking as well. I don't think doing VSS in purely routed environment like a core really buys you anything. Other than more risk :)
And even at the distribution level, I'd be a lot more comfortable with VPC rather than VSS given that VPC gives you kind of separate control planes. Oliver ------------------------------------- Oliver Garraux Check out my blog: blog.garraux.net Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Andy Ellsworth <[email protected]> wrote: > For those of you running 6500 VSS and using the traditional 3-layer campus > model (core/distro/access) with a layer 3 core...do you use VSS in your > core? > > We are using VSS in the core and distro layers today, but the more > $WEIRD_THINGS software bugs we encounter that affect the whole VSS pair on > our distros, the less inclined I am to keep VSS in the core. > > My thinking is that at the distro layer, you at least get some significant > benefits for your layer 2 downlinks to your access switches (MEC, no STP, > no FHRPs). But in the core, where all of your connectivity is > point-to-point L3 links to distros, we can get all of those same benefits > with EC + ECMP OSPF (and we don't have anything hitting the core that would > need FHRPs). > > The conclusion I've come to is that VSS at the distro layer has significant > benefits with some downsides, while VSS for a L3 core has very few benefits > but increased risk of software/human error failures. > > Has anyone else gone through this thought exercise? > > -Andy > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
