[c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions

[Darin Herteen]

I'll second on that BGP-SD we use it everywhere we deploy them and works like a champ!


I'll also second the weakness of netflow using the video profile and the SFP issues after upgrade(s). Not so cool..

________________________________
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net> on behalf of Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:17 AM
To: Erik Sundberg; Stephen Fulton; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions



On 20/Dec/17 00:36, Erik Sundberg wrote:

>
> One down side is the 20K IPv4/IPv6 Route limit. So no full routes and we also place a RT Filter on our VPNv4 sessions back to the core.

BGP-SD is your friend.

We hold a full IPv4/IPv6 table on each of them in RAM, which a handful
of useful routes in FIB. Works great!

It means we can offer our customers a native eBGP session with a full
BGP table from the ASR920, i.e., no need for an eBGP Multi-Hop session
into the "clever" core.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
cisco-nsp Info Page - puck.nether.net<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>
puck.nether.net
To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the cisco-nsp Archives. Using cisco-nsp: To post a message to all the list members, send ...


archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/