On 31/05/11 16:15, Gert Doering wrote:
Well, it really depends on a number of factors - like "do you need to run different software on core/edge?" or "do you have junior network admins that you want to start learning their way on the edge routers, where they cannot break that much" etc.
Got your point, make sense.
We found it useful to have this separation - but if you don't want that, there is nothing particularily wrong with "just have two boxes and terminate upstream and downstream links on both of them" - for redundancy, give the customers two links to both boxes, and all is set...
As we lately start growing we probably go with additional box(es), per customer(s), which hold full bgp for them too. Also can't we go with some kind router reflector which isn't passing any traffic (changing next-hop to one of border)?
btw in your scheme there is link between CR1 and CR2, what's point to have such, if my customer is have bgp session with both there is no chance packet could go to "worst path" and thus link between CR1 and CR2 redundant. Probably I miss some case scenario?
Thanks _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
