In balance then, we have better filtering versus less config, which has
already been noted can (must) be completely automated. Where one's shop
is on the NetDevOps curve probably has a lot of impact on the decision,
which is unfortunate.
On 6/25/18 10:29 AM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
On 2018-06-25 18:22, Scott Whyte wrote:
BGP, as you say, provides excellent filtering capabilities. What
does OSPF/ISIS bring to the table?
Automatic discovery of peers, and thus less unique configuration. You
don't need to configure each peer individually, just the interface. If
you do unnumbered links, you don't even need to allocate link networks
for your routing links, giving even less unique configuration. Just
set interfaces xe-0/0/17.1 family inet unnumbered-address lo0.1
set interfaces xe-0/0/17.1 family inet6
set protocols ospf area A.B.C.D interface xe-0/0/17.1 interface-type p2p
set protocols ospf3 area A.B.C.D interface xe-0/0/17.1 interface-type p2p
and you're done. The nice thing is that the only unique piece of
configuration is the interface name.
Doing unnumbered links for BGP seems to at least be more complicated,
but Cumulus Linux is supposed to have support for it, making it as easy
to configure as OSPF.
(https://blog.ipspace.net/2015/02/bgp-configuration-made-simple-with.html;
I've never used Cumulus, just read about it.)
/Bellman
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
