Hi, On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:29:11PM -0400, Dan Armstrong wrote: > Two reasons, the first reason is that the config is extremely > simple, clean and difficult for a less trained provisioning guy to > make a mistake. With route maps, it's error prone to harmonize > them across many boxes - and it's relatively easy for somebody to > muck one up by accident.
I'm not exactly sure I buy the "simple and clean" argument... unless
convinced otherwise, I'd claim that the customer-facing config is about
the same complexity with and without VRFs, and the network-side is more
complicated with VRFs and MPLS.
What sort of route-maps are that, that you think need synchronizing?
(genuinely curious)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgpwWS7dI92MC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
