On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:39:13PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Each major PoP has been configured with its unique, global Cluster-ID.
> This has been scaling very well for us.
> I think the Multiple Cluster-ID is overkill.

Have you considered the downsides of sharing a Cluster-ID across
multiple boxes, and do you have any arguments to support why it is

> > Also if you carry a mix of full internet prefixes and VPN prefixes
> > across your backbone, then I suggest you carve up one iBGP
> > infrastructure for VPN prefixes and a separate one for the Internet
> > prefixes (for stability and security reasons -and helps with scaling
> > too if that's a concern). 
> We use the same RR for all address families. Resources are plenty with
> a VM-based RR deployment.

Are you at least using separate BGP sessions for each address families?

> The RR's are out-of-path, so are not part of our IP/MPLS data plane.

Are you using optimal route reflection, or how have you mitigated
negative effects caused by the lack of ORR?

Kind regards,

cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Reply via email to