[j-nsp] Spine & leaf

Scott Whyte swhyte at gmail.com
Mon Jun 25 13:37:37 EDT 2018


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
> 


More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list