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

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:49:39 AM Keegan Holley 
wrote:
 
> +1 on the $$$.   Still PE is one network P+PE is
> essentially two networks.

No. P + P/PE is one network.

P + P/PE are two devices.

> I still don't see how this
> adds to complexity.  For most commonly used features the
> per-hop-behavior is the same on the PE router whether
> the packet came from a core P router or another PE
> router. 

There are many features that are not turned on on core 
routers, which are on edge routers.

I can't recall the last time I logged into our core routers 
for anything other than to add a new link. You don't want to 
know how often our Provisioning team are logging into the PE 
routers.

If one PE router goes down, I don't have to worry about 25% 
of the country feeling the pinch, as I have that 
abstraction.

> Maybe I'm missing something, but PE routers are
> not going everywhere and if we're strictly talking about
> complexity it's easier to manage one network instead of
> 2.

It's all one network. What's more than one is the devices, 
not the network itself. 

Even if it may seem trivial, it's important to make this 
distinction, because successful networks are always scaling 
up, and scaling up means buying more kit whether we like it 
or not, i.e., device numbers go up, sometimes because you 
want to delineate functions.

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/20111020/ed76bab2/attachment.pgp>