[j-nsp] improving global unicast convergence (with or without BGP-PIC)

[Michael Hare]

Agreeing with Raphael, my reading implies indirect-next-hop cannot be disabled on TRIO.  That said I do explicitly configure it on all of our MX gear.

You may also want to look at indirect-next-hop-change-acknowledgements, in my case I use LFA and dynamic-rsvp-lsp and have it configured acknowledging (no pun intended) it may be adding to my poor convergence woes without BGP PIC.  FWIW I left krt-nexthop-ack-timeout at its default of 1s.

http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/indirect-next-hop-change-acknowledgements-edit-routing-options-forwarding-options.html

-Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared at puck.Nether.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:48 PM
> To: Charlie Allom <charlie at evilforbeginners.com>
> Cc: Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>; Michael Hare
> <michael.hare at wisc.edu>; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] improving global unicast convergence (with or without
> BGP-PIC)
> 
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 08:45:17PM +0100, Charlie Allom wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > You want to set indirect-next-hop in all use-cases.  This allows
> > > faster FIB convergence upon RIB events because all shared next-hops can
> be
> > > updated
> > > at once.
> > >
> > Is this the case for chassis MX104 and 80? Is your recommendation to run
> > with indirect-next-hop on them as well?
> >
> > ..or are there downsides on these smaller units?
> 
> 	Yes, I would use this on all JunOS devices myself.
> 
> 	- Jared
> 
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
> clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.