On 17/Aug/18 10:56, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hey Mark, > > It has been a while .... It has, mate. Good to see you in these parts again :-)... > > Out of pure curiosity how are you setting up different BGP sessions to > the same RR ? > > I think what Adam is proposing is real TCP session isolation, what you > may be doing is just same single TCP session, but different SAFIs > which is not the same. You're right; I should have clarified that better - we are, indeed, running one TCP session with multiple SAFI's. The only uniqueness between BGP sessions at a TCP level would be by IP protocol, i.e., IPv4 and IPv6. But even within IPv6, we carry multiple SAFI's across a single TCP session. > > Sure you can configure parallel iBGP sessions on the TCP level say > between different loopback addresses to the same RR, but what would > that really buy you ? You could even be more brave and use BGP > multisession code path (if happens to be even supported by your > vendor) which in most implementations I have seen is full of holes > like swiss cheese but is this what you are doing ? I'm not that brave :-). But to your point, the complete hardware and Layer 4 separation of BGP sessions, perhaps going one step further and having separate planes for different SAFI's, is overkill, IMHO. But that's just me. As I mentioned before, we've had our setup since 2014. With the exception of x86 hardware being more sensitive to temperature situations, causing related failures, we haven't had any issues at all. > PS. Have not been reading -nsp aliases for a while, but now I see > that I missed a lot ! Btw do we really need per vendor aliases here ? > Wouldn't it be much easier to just have single nsp list ? After all we > all most likely have all of the vendors in our networks (including > Nokia !) and we are all likely reading all the lists :) Or maybe there > is one already ? There isn't one to rule them all, AFAIK. In fact, Arista-NSP went live just yesterday, if I'm not mistaken :-). I think there is value in having separate lists for the different vendors. I wouldn't say all network operators have each of them to make one list the ideal. Besides, there are a lot of things I have zero interest in on one list that I wish I could filter out (SRX on j-nsp, ASA on c-nsp, as examples). You can imagine what that'd be like on a single list :-). Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp