> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Robert Raszuk
> So for educational purposes could you describe some real valid use cases to
> apply bgp policies on routes *received* over IBGP ?
>
> Thx,
> Robert.
Setting local preference?
While we are a bit diverging from original topic and while indeed under
very careful application there could be some use cases for outbound bgp
policies even for ibgp I have never seen one to be applied inbound - which
was the point of my comment.
So for educational purposes could you describe
Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:47:27PM +0200, Robert Raszuk:
> Decent bgp implementation should not allow iBGP learned routes to be
> subject to any bgp policy as doing so will easily result with inconsistent
> routing.
That is not entirely true; yes, one must be careful when applying policy
to internal
> There is nothing to stop me creating a horribly complex iBGP policy
Decent bgp implementation should not allow iBGP learned routes to be
subject to any bgp policy as doing so will easily result with inconsistent
routing. So on this ground there can be bgp code path differences on how
the routes
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 15:30, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I think the difference Mark may have in mind that iBGP routes say from RR are
> advertised from RR's control plane. Many RRs today are just x86 control plane
> boxes with no forwarding.
>
> On the other hand number of implementations before
Check out the white paper on terastream
On Thursday, October 11, 2018, harbor235 wrote:
> Gents,
>
> I have a green field IPv6 infrastructure that I am standing up, I plan on
> allocating unique IPv6 net block ranges for infrastructure nets
> (loopbacks/routerid, pt-to-pts), service delivery
On 11/Oct/18 16:30, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> James,
>
> I think the difference Mark may have in mind that iBGP routes say from
> RR are advertised from RR's control plane. Many RRs today are just x86
> control plane boxes with no forwarding.
>
> On the other hand number of implementations
On 11/Oct/18 15:56, James Bensley wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> What makes you think there would be a difference in time to load eBGP learned
> routes vs. iBGP learned routes? Something from personal experience?
>
> Am I being naive here, I'd expect them to be the same? An UPDATE from an eBGP
> or
Gents,
I have a green field IPv6 infrastructure that I am standing up, I plan on
allocating unique IPv6 net block ranges for infrastructure nets
(loopbacks/routerid, pt-to-pts), service delivery allocations (customer
services), North of the security boundary layer, south of security boundary
> Hi Mark,
>
> What makes you think there would be a difference in time to load eBGP
> learned routes vs. iBGP learned routes? Something from personal experience?
James,
I think the difference Mark may have in mind that iBGP routes say from RR
are advertised from RR's control plane. Many RRs
Hi!
I have a Cisco ASR1004 running IOS 12.2(33)XNF2 on IOS XE 02.06.02,
which for some reason, does not return cbQosIfIndex for some
interfaces. For example, here is an interface with input
service-policy configuration applied:
asr1004#sh policy-map interface TenGigabitEthernet1/1/0.260 input
On 5 October 2018 08:25:35 BST, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>On 5/Oct/18 09:17, Robert Hass wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> I'm looking for share experiences regarding time needed to program
>full DFZ
>> table (710K IPv4 prefixes) on NCS 5500 boxes.
>>
>> Right now we testing competitors (Jericho based boxes) and
Nicolas covered the RIB speed in the blog as well, and had varying results, but
on average about 10s for today's full table. The bottleneck in the operation
is usually the advertising router, not the local router populating the RIB. I
don't think there was a test where the FIB took more than
13 matches
Mail list logo
