BGP topological vs centralized route reflector

Alain Hebert ahebert at
Thu Feb 14 12:04:48 UTC 2019


     Unlucky as always, we had issues with the chassis of a MX104 about 
every years since we installed.

     I thinking the vibration from the train track above our location 
might be having an effect on connectors in those chassis, but we never 
got a "autopsy" report back from JNP about the chassis we swapped.

     Oddly luck, we have ~40 VM servers in the rack beside it with a mix 
of mechanical and SSDs drive with 0 issues for the same time span.

     So mileage may vary.

Alain Hebert                                ahebert at
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911    Fax: 514-990-9443

On 2/14/19 12:15 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 13/Feb/19 20:00, Saku Ytti wrote:
>> Main advantage of out-of-path is that you decouple FIB and RIB scaling
>> requirements and feature requirements. Your backbone device does not
>> need to be qualified for large RIB or BGP at all. And when you do need
>> more RIB scaling, you can upgrade out-of-path without any network
>> interruption.
> We've ran this for years (Cisco CSR1000v, since 2014), and our biggest
> problem has been server hardware failure. Failing fans, sensitivity to
> higher temperatures that routers can weather better... that sort of thing.
> Other than that, run this as a VM in your favourite hypervisor and
> you're good to go. Can't recommend it enough.
> Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list