Oups..., resend after ML police pointed out that message was too heavy. mh
Le 15/11/2013 18:14, Michael Hallgren a écrit : > Le 15/11/2013 17:53, Yham a écrit : >> can you comments on how AS-confederation will benefit more over >> having all BRs part of single public AS with iBGP peering with neighbors. > cBGP (or whatever we call it) between your sub-AS would allow you to > nicely, more flexibly than with IGP, manage how traffic flow between them. >> Datacenter-1 one is already on public AS so it will be difficult to >> make changes. > > Right. It's a good thing to introduce AS-confed early. Later migration > may be a PITA... > > mh > >> The only reason with two AS is architectural complexity when you >> suggest one AS for both DCs or do you think any routing issues can >> also be encounters. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Dave Curado <da...@curado.org >> <mailto:da...@curado.org>> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Yham, >> Yes, with that link between the BR-1/BR-2 pair, I would tend to >> make them one AS. >> I just like keeping things as straight-forward as I can. =-) >> But using different ASes would work as well. >> >> That said, Michael Hallgren suggested doing an AS-confederation. >> I think that's a great >> idea to consider. >> >> Thanks, >> Dave >> <snip/> _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp