mtinka at globaltransit.net
Sat Jan 23 13:43:19 EST 2010
On Sunday 24 January 2010 02:13:41 am Richard A Steenbergen
> Convenience. Obviously with eBGP there are other reasons
> to run two sessions (like liveness tests), but with iBGP
> there is no inherent reason why you'd need to duplicate
> your BGP mesh. Cisco does the right thing
> w/next-hop-self, you just have to work around this
> behavior with Juniper NHS.
With regard to routing policy, we originally considered
utilizing the same policy framework for v6 as we did v4,
literally sharing it between both v4 and v6 iBGP sessions,
but that didn't work out easily as there are some kinky
things we did with v4 that the simplicity of v6 gladly takes
away. So separating them made sense, and the convenience was
Independent iBGP sessions for v4 and v6 are convenient
enough for us, but if for nothing else, the ability to have
v6 up and running even when something terrible happens to
the v4 network (if it does) is not too shabby.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the juniper-nsp