On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:51:20 PM [email protected] wrote: > I agree. That was my initial choice but had to abandon it > due to pricing. It would simplify the network a lot to > have proper L3 in the access device itself. I don't like > things that require to sync state and I'm not sure how > it would handle a split brain scenario if the link > between the two PEs go down.
Search the archives for this, we got into a lot of detail some time last year on similar deployment scenarios. 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/
