1GE L3 aggregation

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Jun 23 06:43:15 UTC 2016


> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:32 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
> link capacity
> 
> 
>> Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream providers.
> 
> Which is what I said at the end of my reply to you.
> 
> The ring angle came up as part of a wider discussion earlier in this
> thread, where protecting the FIB makes sense.
> 
> 
>> Even if you’re in a ring if you’ve got two transit providers at some random point on the ring, it still probably doesn’t make a meaningful difference between full feeds from each vs. ECMP, because it’s pretty unlikely that the AS PATH length is affected by the ring length.
> 
> In my experience, rings are normally on-net backbones (Metro-E, e.t.c.).
> The terminating devices on the core side at each end of the ring will be
> your own equipment, and not another AS.
> 
> Two links to your upstream won't matter whether it's in a ring or just
> plain point-to-point circuits, as there is no IGP relevance on such tails.
> 
> Mark.
> 

Hence my confusion about your ring comments in the context of the message I was replying to.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list