[j-nsp] Spine & leaf

[Scott Whyte]

In balance then, we have better filtering versus less config, which has 
already been noted can (must) be completely automated.  Where one's shop 
is on the NetDevOps curve probably has a lot of impact on the decision, 
which is unfortunate.


On 6/25/18 10:29 AM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
> On 2018-06-25 18:22, Scott Whyte wrote:
> 
>> BGP, as you say, provides excellent filtering capabilities.  What
>> does OSPF/ISIS bring to the table?
> 
> Automatic discovery of peers, and thus less unique configuration.  You
> don't need to configure each peer individually, just the interface.  If
> you do unnumbered links, you don't even need to allocate link networks
> for your routing links, giving even less unique configuration.  Just
> 
>    set interfaces xe-0/0/17.1 family inet unnumbered-address lo0.1
>    set interfaces xe-0/0/17.1 family inet6
>    set protocols ospf area A.B.C.D interface xe-0/0/17.1 interface-type p2p
>    set protocols ospf3 area A.B.C.D interface xe-0/0/17.1 interface-type p2p
> 
> and you're done.  The nice thing is that the only unique piece of
> configuration is the interface name.
> 
> Doing unnumbered links for BGP seems to at least be more complicated,
> but Cumulus Linux is supposed to have support for it, making it as easy
> to configure as OSPF.
> (https://blog.ipspace.net/2015/02/bgp-configuration-made-simple-with.html;
> I've never used Cumulus, just read about it.)
> 
> 
> 	/Bellman
>