On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Olivier Benghozi <olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr> wrote: > Here (VPNv4/v6, BGP PIC Core + PIC Edge, no addpath as not supported in vpn > AFI) we can see that, when possible: > active eBGP path is backuped via iBGP path > active iBGP path is backuped via another iBGP path > > We don't see: > active iBGP backuped via inactive eBGP > active eBGP backuped via another inactive eBGP
Ok, so this is the same that I see. Maybe IBGP->EBGP PIC will be supported in some future junos version :) > Note that in your case (in inet.0) there's no BGP PIC Edge feature, as I > understand it's just a special PIC feature needed for labelled paths toward > outside, and you can see that BGP PIC Core for inet already covers your eBGP > routes in inet.0. This edge/core terminology is not very clear. As stated in the documentation [1] and "MPLS in the SDN era" book (page 801-802) "protect core" is actually PIC edge. > Also note that in your case, PE2 (at least when using NHS) cannot quickly > detect a TRA1 loss anyway, so there's no usecase here, in fact... This is correct, thanks for clarification. > Of course you already know that having both TRA1 and TRA2 with the same > localpref does the trick (even without addpath), but it's not what you > intended to test :) Yes I do and I tested it too. Failover was approx 1-2 seconds. Maybe this is the way to go in production. There may be reasons why one does not want to "load-balance" between transits though. [1] https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/protect-core-edit-routing-instances.html _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
