On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 at 00:05, Johan Borch <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I don't think it's necessarily problematic. I would personally in same situation use the edge devices as RR (I would have separate loopbacks for PE and RR, so I can later move the RR loopback to dedicated RR host). > 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? Usually not. But in rare cases you may end up building solutions in full-mesh where you depend on iBGP-IN policy to receive every copy of routes from far-end, which would be masked by RR, and that solution would stop working unless addPath or such is added in RR. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
