[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[Adam Vitkovsky]

Hi,

> Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:24 PM
> As a peering router, I don't mind either - we deploy MX's, ASR1000's and
> ASR9000's in this role, and happy with either of them.
>
I'd like to ask Mark and users of MX as peering routers (in a scaled configuration) do you put every peer into separate group and you don't mind or perceive any inefficiencies during BGP convergence resulting from many update groups?
Or you start with several peer groups and group peers based on common egress policies into those and don't mind a peer flapping if it's policy needs to be adjusted and the peer is being put into its own update group?
Thanks.

adam


        Adam Vitkovsky
        IP Engineer

T:      0333 006 5936
E:      Adam.Vitkovsky at gamma.co.uk
W:      www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster at gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.