On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 08:53:19PM +0200, Johan Borch wrote: > Is it a good or bad idea to run IP transit (full table ipv4 & ipv6) in a > MPLS L3VPN and rely on the MP-BGP to carry routes around or is it better to > skip the MPLS part and run iBGP between the routers with transit links?
I'm very much in favor of this approach for a couple of reasons, some have been already mentioned. Problem was/is, that everytime I considered deployment, I found features missing for L3VPNs that were required and present for the "global table", as well as scaling limitations (think of older M-Series - not sure offhand what today's figures look like for current generation architectures). As someone for whom L3VPNs are daily business, treating Internet just as another L3VPN feels very much natural and desireable. But ask the enterprise operator next door, I guess you'll get a completely different PoV. :) Boy how I would love to get rid of rib-groups, finally get proper management interface routing separation etc... sigh. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp