nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:08:46 +0200
On 14/Feb/19 14:04, Alain Hebert wrote:
Hi, Unlucky as always, we had issues with the chassis of a MX104 about every years since we installed.
Are you using the MX104 as a route reflector? If so, make one of the VM's your alternative for this function :-). If you're not doing any non-Ethernet services on your MX104, and are struggling with the control plane, I'd propose moving to the MX204. 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: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) adamv0025 (Feb 19)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)