> On Sep 30, 2015, at 02:06, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > > the advantage - as with switch stacking - is with administration. You end > up with O(1) admin interfaces to lots of boxes instead of O(n). This can > be important if there's too much overhead associated with maintaining > parallel installations of IOS and XR. > > Personally, I'd be more concerned with the loss of path redundancy and loss > of service in the case of upgrades. > > Nick
absolutely. however -- as with any control-plane sharing feature -- there are also some tradeoffs, namely around upgrades and sometimes erractic behaviour of a chassis because of its peer. knowing and understanding the pros and cons of moving to nv is important (although its the same for any feature) -- and not just looking at nv as a panacea is critical for success in the network. i tend to be of the mindset of 'separate boxes have separate control-planes' -- so i carry that prejudice in to this conversation. i do think that touchpoint minimization is "a good thing"(tm) and welcome the use of automation/provisioning systems that interact with the control-plane of $device, especially if administration is already ornerous within the network. however -- i just tend to be wary of control-plane unification technologies, as i have been bitten and burned by things not working as expected due to said technology. q. -- quinn snyder | [email protected] -= sent via ipad. please excuse brevity, spelling, and grammar =- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
