On 10/26/2011 10:24 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 09:26:11 PM Chris Morrow > wrote: > >> As I've said in the grow-wg sessions several times (and >> at nanog and other places) VA, and other solutions like >> it, may be fine in some deployments, they may even save >> you some cycle time on RP/RE/linecards, each operator >> that uses these solutions needs to decide for themselves >> what level of loss in granularity is acceptable and on >> which platforms in their network they will still need to >> carry full routes in rib + fib. > > For networks that may be feeling pressure in the core (and > if the core is especially large that the problem is > magnified), this really is where MPLS can have real > application, as opposed to just being a buzz word for folk > that think it's cool.
this is a LOT of overhead though, where 'how about we just supress these /24s k?' could work 'as well'. > If removing BGP from your core will save you tons of $$ in > core router upgrades, then MPLS is certainly worth > considering. Of course, this assumes the network is again, overhead/tradeoffs... it's not a 'bad thing' just something to keep in mind, it's not as blithe as 'sure, turn on that em-pee-ell-ess' as I've heard many times :) > currently already running MPLS, or does not find deploying > to be rocket science. If neither of those pre-conditions is > the case, then it's not such a hot idea, of course. > > Also, it assumes your edge (particularly the Aggregation > nodes) can still handle a full table, which may also not be > the case for some networks. yup... good thing people removed those 7500's from the edge! and 12008's! (and m40's)... oh, wait :( _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
