On Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:49:39 AM Keegan Holley wrote: > +1 on the $$$. Still PE is one network P+PE is > essentially two networks.
No. P + P/PE is one network. P + P/PE are two devices. > I still don't see how this > adds to complexity. For most commonly used features the > per-hop-behavior is the same on the PE router whether > the packet came from a core P router or another PE > router. There are many features that are not turned on on core routers, which are on edge routers. I can't recall the last time I logged into our core routers for anything other than to add a new link. You don't want to know how often our Provisioning team are logging into the PE routers. If one PE router goes down, I don't have to worry about 25% of the country feeling the pinch, as I have that abstraction. > Maybe I'm missing something, but PE routers are > not going everywhere and if we're strictly talking about > complexity it's easier to manage one network instead of > 2. It's all one network. What's more than one is the devices, not the network itself. Even if it may seem trivial, it's important to make this distinction, because successful networks are always scaling up, and scaling up means buying more kit whether we like it or not, i.e., device numbers go up, sometimes because you want to delineate functions. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
