Robert, That's why I replied it depends, I wanted to ensure Zaidoon was aware of scenarios where it was appropriate.
Mike On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Well of course. > > But I assumed that the question is about connecting the given pair of > ASBRs over parallel physical links between them. > > R, > > > Depends, if the two ISP peers were located at two different POPs and your > > layer one connectivity > > was diverse this would help your AS in more failure scenarios than a > single > > threaded design. Of course > > I would also diversify the connections onto different linecards/slots as > > well. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi zaidoon, > >> > >> Nope - I would not recommend that. > >> > >> Your better choice is to peer between loopbacks and use > >> disable-connected-check knob or BGP multihop. > >> > >> Two sessions will cause you to get the same paths two times wasting a > >> bit of control plane memory and CPU inbound processing - but that's > >> about it. On the peer's side update generation would be the same as your > >> peer would only copy at replication. But better is to have single > >> session IMHO. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> R. > >> > >>> Is it recommended to terminate > >>> two bgp session on 12000 xr that peering with the same isp on the > same > >> router how > >>> to handle full routing table ? Any clues > >>> > >>> Zaid > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
