[j-nsp] Best practice for igp/bgp metrics

[Saku Ytti]

Hey,

This only matters if you are letting system assign metric
automatically based on bandwidth. Whole notion of preferring
interfaces with most bandwidth is fundamentally broken. If you are
using this design, you might as well assign same number to every
interface and use strict hop count.

On 25 October 2017 at 22:41, Luis Balbinot <luis at luisbalbinot.com> wrote:
> Never underestimate your reference-bandwidth!
>
> We recently set all our routers to 1000g (1 Tbps) and it was not a
> trivial task. And now I feel like I'm going to regret that in a couple
> years. Even if you work with smaller circuits, having larger numbers
> will give you more range to play around.
>
> Luis
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Alexander Dube <nsp at layerwerks.net> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> we're redesigning our backbone with multiple datacenters and pops currently and looking for a best practice or a recommendation for configuring the metrics.
>> What we have for now is a full meshed backbone with underlaying isis. IBGP exports routes without any metric. LSP are in loose mode and are using isis metric for path calculation.
>>
>> Do you have a recommendation for metrics/te ( isis and bgp ) to have some values like path lengh ( kilometers ), bandwidth, maybe latency, etc inside of path calculation?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Alex
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp



-- 
  ++ytti