We’ve been running VC on the MX platform for years without issue. Scott H Login, LLC
> On Nov 16, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Chuck Anderson <c...@wpi.edu> wrote: > > Virtual Chassis shares the management, control, and data planes across the > two routers. I don't like that from a high-availability standpoint. The two > routers are tightly coupled with software versions, bootup, etc. > > MC-LAG shares some of the control and data planes via ICCP but maintains > separate routing & management planes so it is better in that respect. > > But IMO the best architecture is a L3 routed one. If you need L2 services to > extend across the L3 then use MPLS services such as EVPN. > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:57:42AM -0500, harbor235 wrote: >> Has anyone deployed VCCP on the MX platform as a solution for a pair of >> edge routers that traditionally would support a BGP multihomed architecture? >> >> I am interested if VCCP is a viable solution to replace the traditional >> dual homed architecture and if there are any pros and cons. Are there >> limitations with VCCP? Operational issues? EGP and/or IGP limitations, >> etc.... > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
