On Thursday, January 1, 2015, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Running various functions on a couple small VM clusters makes a lot of > sense. > > >
I agree, it makes some sense, especially if you are control plane bound. But, nearly all my routers run between 1% and 10% cpu. Ymmv. I have feeling that running a bgp rr on cheap / standard / commidity vm is pretty exotic from a support perspective. So running a bgp rr on a vm may make sense in theory, but my network control planes are not too busy and vm bgp is a unique/ exotic support model. Your network is probably different > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeff Tantsura" <jeff.tants...@ericsson.com <javascript:;>> > To: "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org <javascript:;>> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org <javascript:;> > Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 7:54:32 PM > Subject: Re: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path? > > You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support "not on lsp" flag > (different implementation have different names for it) > There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are > many reasons to still run commercial code base, mostly feature set and > resilience. > > Regards, > Jeff > > > On Jan 1, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> On 01/01/2015 21:37, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > >> Are anyone using Bird, Quagga etc. for this? > > > > there are patches for both code-bases and some preliminary support for > > vpnv4 in quagga, but other than that neither currently supports either > ldp > > or the vpnv4/vpnv6 address families in the main-line code. > > > > Nick > > > > > >