On Sunday 24 January 2010 02:13:41 am Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Convenience. Obviously with eBGP there are other reasons > to run two sessions (like liveness tests), but with iBGP > there is no inherent reason why you'd need to duplicate > your BGP mesh. Cisco does the right thing > w/next-hop-self, you just have to work around this > behavior with Juniper NHS.
With regard to routing policy, we originally considered utilizing the same policy framework for v6 as we did v4, literally sharing it between both v4 and v6 iBGP sessions, but that didn't work out easily as there are some kinky things we did with v4 that the simplicity of v6 gladly takes away. So separating them made sense, and the convenience was retained. Independent iBGP sessions for v4 and v6 are convenient enough for us, but if for nothing else, the ability to have v6 up and running even when something terrible happens to the v4 network (if it does) is not too shabby. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
