Hi,
> Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:24 PM
> As a peering router, I don't mind either - we deploy MX's, ASR1000's and
> ASR9000's in this role, and happy with either of them.
>
I'd like to ask Mark and users of MX as peering routers (in a scaled
configuration) do you put every peer into separate group and you don't mind or
perceive any inefficiencies during BGP convergence resulting from many update
groups?
Or you start with several peer groups and group peers based on common egress
policies into those and don't mind a peer flapping if it's policy needs to be
adjusted and the peer is being put into its own update group?
Thanks.
adam
Adam Vitkovsky
IP Engineer
T: 0333 006 5936
E: adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk
W: www.gamma.co.uk
This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of
this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which
it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship.
No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it
in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error,
please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our
postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmas...@gamma.co.uk
Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with
limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office
is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at
Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
