Thanks, this is a quite small network at the moment. Three edge routers (with full tables) and a bunch (9) PE routers (these will be able to handle full table). I guess my only option right now is to run RR on my three edge routers, not sure if that is a good idea.
A bunch of virtual RRs sound like a good solution. But we can't add more cost at the moment, is it hard to migrate towards a RR design at a later stage? Johan On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 3:39 PM Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: > I would generally recommend RR on anything more than 2 router setup. > > RR gives redundancy on the signalling path, one iBGP flap doesn't > cause an outage. > > With ORR and ADDPATH you're not really losing anything. > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 14:36, Johan Borch via juniper-nsp > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > In an SR/MP-BGP underlay, will it have a significant impact on device > > performance if we use a full iBGP mesh instead of route reflectors or > other > > drawbacks? Let’s say we will end up with around 100 PE routers. These > > routers will not carry an excessive number of prefixes (no full tables). > > We can ignore the configuration part as configuration is auto-generated. > > > > Br > > Johan > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > -- > ++ytti > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
