nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 07:15:49 +0200
On 13/Feb/19 20:00, Saku Ytti wrote:
Main advantage of out-of-path is that you decouple FIB and RIB scaling requirements and feature requirements. Your backbone device does not need to be qualified for large RIB or BGP at all. And when you do need more RIB scaling, you can upgrade out-of-path without any network interruption.
We've ran this for years (Cisco CSR1000v, since 2014), and our biggest problem has been server hardware failure. Failing fans, sensitivity to higher temperatures that routers can weather better... that sort of thing. Other than that, run this as a VM in your favourite hypervisor and you're good to go. Can't recommend it enough. Mark.
Current thread:
- BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mohammad Khalil (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Alain Hebert (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Aaron Gould (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)