Just commenting on a couple things: > If the MX140-A from our previous example loses its Transit link it will (via > BGP-PIC) immediately reroute traffic to MX140-B > However by default MX140-B has a best path via MX140-A -so until it receives > withdrawn from MX140-A it'll loop traffic back to MX140-A. > That's why you want MX140-B to prefer it's local exit. > > *not sure what was Juniper and ALU thinking when they came up with the same > protocol preference for eBGP and iBGP routes, there's a ton of reasons why > you always want to prefer closest AS-EXIT.
Probably the same as Cisco, when Cisco on multiple occasions have promoted using the same administrative distance (200) for both EBGP and IBGP as "best practice". > Caveats: > "vrf-table-label" must be enabled at the routing-instance on the MX140s - > just another stupidity in this script kiddie OS of Junos You are of course free to call JunOS whatever you want. Calling JunOS a "script kiddie OS" may not the best way to be taken seriously. In any case, vrf-table-label is *much* older than PIC (around 10 years, if I remember correctly). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
