[j-nsp] VCCP

[Scott Harvanek]

We’ve been running VC on the MX platform for years without issue.  

Scott H
Login, LLC



> On Nov 16, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Chuck Anderson <cra at WPI.EDU> wrote:
> 
> 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....
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp