On Sunday, July 24, 2011 08:07:31 AM Tony Varriale wrote:
Your consultants/partner not work with a lot of ISPs?
Or, thinking of doing something interesting with
FabricPath?
:-) - their suggestion for dedicated route reflectors was
probably half decent, but then they lost it on the Nexus
On Sunday, July 24, 2011 04:48:29 AM Gert Doering wrote:
Using a M120 as *route reflector* sounds a bit...
overkill... given that this box is fairly large, needs
lots of power, and doesn't have *that* much CPU on the
RE either.
I knew someone would notice that :-).
At the time, the smallest
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 04:17:25PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
At the time, the smallest box that could support 4GB of RAM
from Juniper was the M120.
Mmmh, good point. Can't have enough RAM on a RR.
I wonder whether anyone is running RRs on off-the-shelf PCs with
BIRD today... reasonable
On Sunday, July 24, 2011 07:47:58 PM Gert Doering wrote:
Mmmh, good point. Can't have enough RAM on a RR.
Of course, our concern is whether the new generation of RE's
from Juniper will include support for the M120 so we can get
that 16GB RAM support in the future. Otherwise it makes the
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:10:56PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
but we wanted to support the MCAST-VPN AFI (for LSM) which only
the Juniper supports today.
What's that? Genuinely curious - haven't done anything with multicast
in a while, and nothing with multicast+MPLS ever.
gert
--
On Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:30:24 PM Gert Doering wrote:
What's that? Genuinely curious - haven't done anything
with multicast in a while, and nothing with
multicast+MPLS ever.
NG-MVPN (Next Generation Multicast VPN).
It's different from the commonly-known/used Draft Rosen MVPN
in that
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:10, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote:
We generally prefer the Cisco 7201 as a route reflector
(which would send us to the ASR1001 as an upgrade path,
despite the 512,000 FIB entry support), but we wanted to
support the MCAST-VPN AFI (for LSM) which only the
On Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:01:41 PM Matt Addison wrote:
supports today. So it was a case of:
The ASR1001 supports the (poorly advertised and
not-at-all documented it seems) BGP selective download
feature- which can filter routes from BGP to the RIB.
route-map bgp-to-rib deny 10
!
In our wholesale IP Transit network, we've gone for
dedicated route reflectors (Cisco 7201's) on a per-country
basis, since customers reach us for connectivity and not the
other way around.
In our retail/broadband/transport network, we've split our
operating country into different regions,
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Just because everybody else does it is a no-go in my book :-) - we
currently have a design similar to your current design, that is, all
core routers (8) are full-meshed, and all edge routers in a given
POP use the core as RRs. Edges have
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:03:38AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
In the Central region, we have up to 3x
route reflectors (Juniper M120's) that take care of this
region.
Using a M120 as *route reflector* sounds a bit... overkill... given
that this box is fairly large, needs lots of power,
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:01:23PM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Just because everybody else does it is a no-go in my book :-) - we
currently have a design similar to your current design, that is, all
core routers (8) are
On 7/23/2011 3:01 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Just because everybody else does it is a no-go in my book :-) - we
currently have a design similar to your current design, that is, all
core routers (8) are full-meshed, and all edge routers in a
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 08:56 +1200, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
I can't see any reasons why 3 RRs would be any different to 2 RRs (I
assume that you'd peer all of your PEs to all 3 RRs),
I was thinking extra redundancy. If the two RRs suddenly both were to
crash/malfunction or somehow disconnect from
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:56:13AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
Is there another/better way of addressing this problem than adding extra
redundancy?
[..]
We have a very small routing table at the moment (~10k prefixes, largest
VRF has ~2k, no Internet), and I'd gladly sacrifice some
Rathlev
Cc: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Number of route reflectors, best practice?
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:56:13AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
Is there another/better way of addressing this problem than adding
extra redundancy?
[..]
We have a very small routing table at the moment
We've started acting like grown-ups and have (almost) implemented
seperate route-reflectors. The old setup was a mix of full mesh (6
devices) and RR clients (a few dozens) hanging off 3 of the full mesh
devices.
I'm now contemplating what the right number of RRs are. We have three
main
Hi,
On 21 July 2011 03:34, Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk wrote:
We've started acting like grown-ups and have (almost) implemented
seperate route-reflectors. The old setup was a mix of full mesh (6
devices) and RR clients (a few dozens) hanging off 3 of the full mesh
devices.
I'm now
18 matches
Mail list logo
