[c-nsp] Downsides of combining P and PE functions into a single box

[Keegan Holley]

It depends on your routers and your business.  People like P routers because
they have the option of running just the IGP and a label protocol with a
very small table.  PE routers have to store an entire table, including L2VPN
and L3VPN routes.  I would ask the opposite question.  Is your network big
enough to warrant a core layer?  PE routers are always necessary unless you
plan to do a way with customers.  If you can connect all your PE's without
adding aggregation and core layers you'd obviously time, money and avoid
complexity.


2011/10/18 Herro91 <herro91 at gmail.com>

> Hi Group,
>
> I'd like to get some feedback from the list as to potential downsides of
> combining P and PE functionality into a single router. Besides the obvious
> configuration concerns - i.e. changes being made on an edge box that is
> also
> a core, as well as additional heavy lifting for a P router - are there
> other
> items to be concerned about?
>
> This would be on high end distributed forwarding hardware (not the little
> stuff). TE is definitely a possibility in addition to L2/L3VPNs/VPLS.
>
> Please let me know if you need additional info to make the right
> conclusions.
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>