[j-nsp] VCCP

[Chuck Anderson]

Virtual Chassis shares the management, control, and data planes across the two routers.  I don't like that from a high-availability standpoint.  The two routers are tightly coupled with software versions, bootup, etc.

MC-LAG shares some of the control and data planes via ICCP but maintains separate routing & management planes so it is better in that respect.

But IMO the best architecture is a L3 routed one.  If you need L2 services to extend across the L3 then use MPLS services such as EVPN.

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:57:42AM -0500, harbor235 wrote:
> Has anyone deployed VCCP on the MX platform as a solution for a pair of
> edge routers that traditionally would support a BGP multihomed architecture?
> 
> I am interested if VCCP is a viable solution to replace the traditional
> dual homed architecture and if there are any pros and cons. Are there
> limitations with VCCP? Operational issues? EGP and/or IGP limitations,
> etc....