[c-nsp] ASR opinions..

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Mark,

Well what I meant to say is that the route will not be in global RIB
either. It will only be in BGP table. IOS BGP does not have a concept
of local RIB like some other BGP implementations.

Also on the other hand what is not so nice about ASR1K used as control
plane box is that only half of RP memory will be given to IOS while
the other half will be reserved for system/platform use. This is just
#define currently and is the same regardless of IOS routing
protocols/bgp being 64 bit based for some time.

I discovered this limitation when doing some smoke testing of ASR1001
as route server few months back and platform folks have confirmed such
hard-coded design.

Just thought you may find this not too well documented nit a bit
useful. But do not get me wrong .. if there is any platform I would
recommend from current cisco offering it would be only ASR1K family ;-)

Cheers,
R.


> On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:58:06 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> 
>> You do not need any BGP route to be send to RIB and FIB if you
>> are control plane only router (example Route Reflector).
> 
> Right, I suppose what I meant was both technical and operational
> considerations. If our NOC happen to be troubleshooting routing on
> the route reflector, and suddenly need to ping/traceroute to an
> address, the potential for not having an entry in the FIB despite
> its presence in the RIB could cause massive confusion.
> 
> Mark.