Le 18/08/2016 à 18:00, Hugo Slabbert a écrit :
On Thu 2016-Aug-18 17:13:09 +0200, raf <r...@futomaki.net> wrote:
Picking the Ps are RRs seems weird. Generally your Ps would just be in the IGP but be BGP free. There's nothing "wrong" with it per se, it's just an odd choice as generally you want your Ps to be lightweight and just label-switch without carrying heavy tables, whereas making them RRs means a bunch of RE utilization, which is the opposite of that objective.
Completely agree. If I had to restart from scratch I will certainly separate Ps and use virtual RRs.
The NHS choice on the RRs is also an odd one. Again, it's not necessarily "wrong" but it's not a standard choice and could lead to interesting behaviours. That your saying you couldn't easily take off NHS from the RRs makes me wonder what the constraints are there.
If this were my environment, I'd want to take a step back and consider why I'm doing in-path RRs on P routers when I also appear to have constraints on that choice (not being able to toggle NHS easily) that could make my life more difficult.
Also agree, but unfortunately I do not have much time left on this network...
-- Raphael Mazelier _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
