Agreeing with Raphael, my reading implies indirect-next-hop cannot be disabled on TRIO. That said I do explicitly configure it on all of our MX gear.
You may also want to look at indirect-next-hop-change-acknowledgements, in my case I use LFA and dynamic-rsvp-lsp and have it configured acknowledging (no pun intended) it may be adding to my poor convergence woes without BGP PIC. FWIW I left krt-nexthop-ack-timeout at its default of 1s. http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/indirect-next-hop-change-acknowledgements-edit-routing-options-forwarding-options.html -Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:48 PM > To: Charlie Allom <char...@evilforbeginners.com> > Cc: Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net>; Michael Hare > <michael.h...@wisc.edu>; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] improving global unicast convergence (with or without > BGP-PIC) > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 08:45:17PM +0100, Charlie Allom wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> > wrote: > > > > You want to set indirect-next-hop in all use-cases. This allows > > > faster FIB convergence upon RIB events because all shared next-hops can > be > > > updated > > > at once. > > > > > Is this the case for chassis MX104 and 80? Is your recommendation to run > > with indirect-next-hop on them as well? > > > > ..or are there downsides on these smaller units? > > Yes, I would use this on all JunOS devices myself. > > - Jared > > -- > Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net > clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
