Hi,
There might be some corner cases where running a combined RR/PE can cause
mysterious issues. For example, there was (or is - I'm not sure whether it's
fixed or not) an issue that a RR didn't advertise iBGP learned VPLS routes when
the RR itself had a local attachment circuit in the given
On 17/Aug/18 16:28, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Then best thing is to run two or three RRs in parallel each using
> different BGP code base - even for the same AFI/SAFI pair
With experience, I could consider this. But for now, it does seem like
overkill.
Either, not totally opposed to the
On 17/Aug/18 16:05, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> And going virtual this really is a marginal spend in the grand scheme of
> things.
If you're not going virtual for RR's, you are missing out.
Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
On 17/Aug/18 15:38, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm siding with Adam here. His disaster scenario actually happed to me
> in 3292. We ran for years VXR VPN route-reflectors, after we changed
> them to MX240 we added lot more RR's, with some hard justifications to
> management why we need more when we've
On 17/Aug/18 15:39, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Another alternative would be to spin up a separate BGP process, which I think
> is supported only in XR, but once again that somewhat places one on the
> outskirts of the common deployment graph.
> But I know Mark is using csr1k
>
> It's about increasing the odds of it to fall on the right side,
>
Exactly !
> But comparing say XR and Junos, judging from the rest of the inner workings
I could experience empirically, I'd say they are sufficiently different
> implementations.
>
True. In fact even XE & XR BGP code core
> From: Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr [mailto:benge...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 3:43 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk
> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; Saku Ytti; Juniper List
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Le 17 août 201
wrote:
> >
> >>> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:38 PM
> >>> To: Mark Tinka
> >>> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; tim tiriche; Juniper List
> >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
;>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:38 PM
>>> To: Mark Tinka
>>> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; tim tiriche; Juniper List
>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>>>
>>> Hey Mark,
>>>
>>>>> Yes a good pract
Tinka
> > Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; tim tiriche; Juniper List
> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
> >
> > Hey Mark,
> >
> > > > Yes a good practice is to separate internet routes from
> > > > internal/services l3vpn routes onto separate
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:38 PM
> To: Mark Tinka
> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; tim tiriche; Juniper List
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hey Mark,
>
> > > Yes a good practice is
> From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:57 AM
> To: Mark Tinka
> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; cisco-
> n...@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hey Mark,
Hey Mark,
> > Yes a good practice is to separate internet routes from internal/services
> > l3vpn routes onto separate BGP control planes (different sessions at least)
> > so that malformed bgp msg will affect just one part of your overall BGP
> > infrastructure.
>
> I see you've been giving this
* tim tiriche [2018-08-16 16:40]:
> Hello,
>
> I have a MPLS PE (L3VPN) router that is acting as full mesh iBGP within the
> US. The other routers in the US are not RR and regular iBGP. This router
> also acts as RR for Europe and takes in full BGP table. Is there some
> caveats to watch out
Just to clarify ... I was not really worried about how to follow various
lists - mail client does a good job to combine them into one folder, filter
duplicates etc ...
But when writing general reply/question to Mark today about BGP sessions I
noticed it only had j-nsp - but oh the question is
> PS. Have not been reading -nsp aliases for a while, but now I see that I
> missed a lot ! Btw do we really need per vendor aliases here ? Wouldn't it
> be much easier to just have single nsp list ? After all we all most likely
> have all of the vendors in our networks (including Nokia !) and
On 17/Aug/18 10:56, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hey Mark,
>
> It has been a while
It has, mate. Good to see you in these parts again :-)...
>
> Out of pure curiosity how are you setting up different BGP sessions to
> the same RR ?
>
> I think what Adam is proposing is real TCP session
Hey Mark,
It has been a while
> We've been running all address families on the same RR's (different
> sessions, obviously, but same hardware)
Out of pure curiosity how are you setting up different BGP sessions to the
same RR ?
I think what Adam is proposing is real TCP session isolation,
On 16/Aug/18 17:15, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Yes a good practice is to separate internet routes from internal/services
> l3vpn routes onto separate BGP control planes (different sessions at least)
> so that malformed bgp msg will affect just one part of your overall BGP
>
Hello,
Yes there is
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/advertise-from-main-vpn-table-edit-protocols-bgp.html
Also, either don't configure "family route-target" on this combined
PE/RR at all, or configure "family route-target
> Of tim tiriche
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:40 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a MPLS PE (L3VPN) router that is acting as full mesh iBGP within
the
> US. The other routers in the US
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von
tim tiriche
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2018 16:40
An: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Betreff: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
Hello,
I have a MPLS PE (L3VPN) router that is acting as full mesh iBGP within the
US. The other routers in the US
Hello,
I have a MPLS PE (L3VPN) router that is acting as full mesh iBGP within the
US. The other routers in the US are not RR and regular iBGP. This router
also acts as RR for Europe and takes in full BGP table. Is there some
caveats to watch out for?
23 matches
Mail list logo
