[j-nsp] Best route reflector platform

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, February 25, 2013 04:56:39 PM Benny Amorsen 
wrote:

> Dedicating an MX routing engine to the task seems a bit
> silly, particularly since it would probably have to be
> an MX240 due to the limitations of the MX80 RE.

A long-standing complaint of mine, for those who've seen 
most of my ranting about the same on this list.

Mind you, I know several networks using M120's and 
MX240's/480's as route reflectors, simply because those are 
the "smallest" boxes with the "largest" memory for dedicated 
route reflection.

I refuse to give in to that nonesense.

> On the Cisco side the answer is ASR1k, but it seems less
> clear-cut with Juniper.

ASR1001 with 16GB DRAM. What more do you want, really?

My only issue with Cisco route reflectors in a Juniper 
network (or vice versa) "was" the lack of compatibility in 
control plane l2vpn NLRI (where Juniper signals BGP NLRI for 
l2circuit-style (or l2vpn as it's known at Juniper) while 
Cisco is expecting VPLS-style, for a VPLS environment. 

I'm currently getting this confirmed as we're planning a 
major network upgrade, particularly for compatibility 
between both vendors re: MCAST-NLRI in NG-MVPN deployments 
(inet-mvpn as they call it at Juniper). 

Will report back if I find out anything interesting.

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/juniper-nsp/attachments/20130414/1e2b9e67/attachment.sig>