Virtual Chassis shares the management, control, and data planes across the two routers. I don't like that from a high-availability standpoint. The two routers are tightly coupled with software versions, bootup, etc.
MC-LAG shares some of the control and data planes via ICCP but maintains separate routing & management planes so it is better in that respect. But IMO the best architecture is a L3 routed one. If you need L2 services to extend across the L3 then use MPLS services such as EVPN. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:57:42AM -0500, harbor235 wrote: > Has anyone deployed VCCP on the MX platform as a solution for a pair of > edge routers that traditionally would support a BGP multihomed architecture? > > I am interested if VCCP is a viable solution to replace the traditional > dual homed architecture and if there are any pros and cons. Are there > limitations with VCCP? Operational issues? EGP and/or IGP limitations, > etc.... _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp