BGP in a containers

Mon Jun 18 15:45:04 UTC 2018

On Sat 2018-Jun-16 00:51:15 -0500, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Running the BGP application in a container on a shared storage system managed by
>a host cluster would also make it easier to start the service up on a
>different host when
>the first host fails or requires maintenance.
>
>On the other hand, running directly on a host,  suggests that
>individual hosts need
>to be backed up again,   and  some sort of manual restore of  local
>files from the lost host
>will be required to copy the non-containerized application to a new host.

Even if the BGP speaker is running right on the host, the shared storage or 
backups thing doesn't click for me.  What about your BGP speaker will need 
persistent storage?  At least in our environment, everything unique about 
the BGP speaker is config injected at startup or can be derived at startup.  
This might be based on differences in how we're using them (BGP daemon per 
container host in our case, rather than "I need X number of BGP speakers; 
schedule them somewhere"), I guess.

-- 
Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20180618/5e1ccc40/attachment.sig>