Hi Dan, > Sure it's a drawback deploying a new feature but it depends on the > network/situation. If you have a network that already has Internet in GRT > and you want to improve routing diversity and convergence, then add-paths > is a lot less painful than trying to move Internet into a VRF. I concur > Internet in VRF has it's merits and I'm not against it but personally I > prefer Internet in GRT - I've never come across a situation where I > couldn't achieve something with Internet in GRT vs. in a VRF and I'd prefer > to avoid the extra resource usage it entails and the potential for someone > to sausage finger something and import the full table into another VRF and > kill the FIB. Well I always deploy per VRF route-limit (not just bgp session limit) to make sure none of the VRFs can kill the whole PE.
> IIRC, enabling add-paths overrides best-external (enables it anyway) but > that may be platform dependent. Might be so as best external exception to the BGP best path selection is a must in order to advertise alternate AS-exits to iBGP neighbours. > I don't know why PIC would be required - I don't see any need for > sub-second convergence of Internet prefixes (and more than a single FIB > entry for an Internet prefix). I'm sure someone will come along with a use > case... :) > Not sure what the exact numbers for ASR9k are but on MX960 It takes around a minute to reprogram next hops for 500k prefixes. Hence my earlier assumption that some just don't care since its Internet service. adam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
