[172321] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Help with Confederation-RR-MPBGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Thu Jun 12 17:43:30 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:43:19 +0200
From: Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <7092.1402591193@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Reply-To: mh@xalto.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Le 12/06/2014 18:39, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu a écrit :
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:25:20 -0700, Philip Lavine said:
>> need some guidance on best practices
>
> What the vendor says is best practices, or what people in the trenches
say?
>
>> Is it more efficient to use RR or Confederation?
>
> If option A is 2% more "efficient" than option B, but takes 10% longer to
> deploy and causes 3% more SLA payouts to your customers when the added
> complexity causes a whoopsie, how much more work could you have gotten
done in
> the time you spent in an uncomfortable meeting explaining to upper
management
> why the whoopsie happened?
>
> (Sorry, it's been that sort of week :)
:-)
Now, Philip, I think along the same path as Vladis: it depends... What does
your physical or layer 2 network look like? How do you expect packets to
move around inside, and in and out, of that topology? You need policing?
How much and of what, etc, etc...?
I'm quite often a fan of confed's, if the network is young thus ``easy''
migration, but there are scenarios... Please provide more detail to this
mail
thread or one-to-one if you prefer.
Cheers,
mh
>
