On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 17:50, Tom Beecher wrote:
> Completely fair, yes. My comments were mostly aimed at a vMX/cRPD comparison.
> I probably wasn't clear about that. Completely agree that it doesn't make
> much sense to move from an existing vRR to cRPD just because. For a
> greenfield thing
Juniper does not have a lot of guidelines on this. This is a bit
surprising to us too. I would have expect some guidelines about IRQ and
CPU pinning. It seems they think this does not matter much for a RR.
However, cRPD comes with better performance than vRR and therefore,
Juniper pushes to
>
> No one is saying that cRPD isn't the future, just that there are a lot
> of existing deployments with vRR, which are run with some success, and
> the entire stability of the network depends on it. Whereas cRPD is a
> newer entrant, and early on back when I tested it, it was very feature
>
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 17:11, Tom Beecher via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> For any use cases that you want protocol interaction, but not substantive
> traffic forwarding capabilities , cRPD is by far the better option.
No one is saying that cRPD isn't the future, just that there are a lot
of existing
4 matches
Mail list logo
