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

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday, October 20, 2011 04:47:55 AM Keegan Holley 
wrote:

> Maybe I was a bit loose with the details here.  My only
> point was that the portion of the network where the P
> routers live has different rules than the edge.

Yes, which is why we make the difference :-).

> Well I think we both can agree that the network you work
> in requires P routers for a number of reasons.  I
> understand the feature differences between the P and PE
> routers.  The point was that people implement P routers
> for different reasons, but not for their own sake.

Agree.

> +1
> I like the pay as you grow model.  If you are small just
> use a collapsed core.  As your customer base grows you
> can move customers to create a core layer or just buy
> more links and more boxes.

That's what we do for our smaller, remote PoP's. We start 
them out as P/PE nodes (MX480's or ASR9010's), and if they 
grow large enough to warrant throwing in a P box later on, 
we do that.

For us, it's safe to do in the remote PoP's because they 
aren't as active or as dynamic. So the chances of somebody 
screwing up the "P" function in the P/PE combo is much 
lower, albeit still present. Given the $$ savings vs. the 
amount of business in the remote PoP's, it's a reasonable 
trade-off.

For other major PoP's (or when the small PoP's grow 
sizeably), we separate P and PE routers.

Cheers,

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/20111020/9a5f055b/attachment.pgp>