[j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router

[Mark Tinka]

On 17/Aug/18 15:38, Saku Ytti wrote:

> I'm siding with Adam here. His disaster scenario actually happed to me
> in 3292. We ran for years VXR VPN route-reflectors, after we changed
> them to MX240 we added lot more RR's, with some hard justifications to
> management why we need more when we've had no trouble with the count
> we had.

Agreed, and I see the use-case as a possible pain-point, particularly
based on your experience.

We'll need to evaluate this on our side, as the path to this road is
onerous.


> Not only is it CAPEX irrelevant to have separate RR for IPv4 and IPv6,
> but you also get faster convergence, as more CPU cycles, fewer BGP
> neighbours, less routes. I view it as cheap insurance as well as very
> simple horizontal scaling.

This might be the case when using real routers as RR's. But having used
CSR1000v on x86 hardware for years now, you are not lacking for CPU
performance, even with 10's of sessions per RR, many of them with full
tables and several SAFI's.

Mark.