[c-nsp] Number of route reflectors, best practice?

[Mark Tinka]

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 box that could support 4GB of RAM 
from Juniper was the M120. Of course, things have advanced 
and an MX240 could be cheaper than an M120 and support 64-
bit Junos which gives you 16GB of RAM today. But we deployed 
before any of this was in the works.

The 2GHz Intel Pentium M CPU has been working fine with all 
our AFI's and routes, so no major drama there.

I know some other houses doing this. It's not the most ideal 
approach, but given our requirements, it was the only 
realistic option.

> Or are you using the M120 to actually forward traffic?

Nope.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110724/dc49af3b/attachment.pgp>