On 27 March 2016 at 13:20, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't like 6PE due to fate-sharing, but I know a lot of people run it > because it reduces workload.
I understand this argument, but I feel it's opposite. Let's assume there is 5% chance of failure to occur in some time frame, i.e. 95% of not occurring. If your control-plane depends on two separate instance working to produce services then you have only 90% chance of failure not occurring, i.e. you reduced service availability by deploying more features. Now you could argue that sure, you maybe have slightly higher chance of failing one of them, but you have much lower chance of failing all of them at same time, that may be true. But for me, having IPv6 up if IPv4 is down is 0 value. The control-plane example you have is non-issue, because I'm going to need OOB to RS232 anyhow. I would decouple my services from my control-plane signalling. And crucially in this particular example, if I'm running MPLS, native IPV6 is not an option, I need labeled paths to have same IPv4 and IPv6 behaviour, RSVP applicability, convergence, BGP free core etc. Only reason I would ever consider native IPv6 is if I'm also doing IPv4 lookups in core. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
