It depends on your routers and your business. People like P routers because they have the option of running just the IGP and a label protocol with a very small table. PE routers have to store an entire table, including L2VPN and L3VPN routes. I would ask the opposite question. Is your network big enough to warrant a core layer? PE routers are always necessary unless you plan to do a way with customers. If you can connect all your PE's without adding aggregation and core layers you'd obviously time, money and avoid complexity.
2011/10/18 Herro91 <[email protected]> > Hi Group, > > I'd like to get some feedback from the list as to potential downsides of > combining P and PE functionality into a single router. Besides the obvious > configuration concerns - i.e. changes being made on an edge box that is > also > a core, as well as additional heavy lifting for a P router - are there > other > items to be concerned about? > > This would be on high end distributed forwarding hardware (not the little > stuff). TE is definitely a possibility in addition to L2/L3VPNs/VPLS. > > Please let me know if you need additional info to make the right > conclusions. > > > Thanks in advance! > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
