BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
ahebert at pubnix.net
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.net
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net 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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG