[177133] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MPLS VPN design - RR in forwarding path?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Wed Dec 31 11:05:28 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:01:55 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Marcin Kurek <notify@marcinkurek.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <54A3E72F.20801@marcinkurek.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--3XfD2rvmwocspSMvWhjFwBaB93IsgmiRx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/31/14 4:08 AM, Marcin Kurek wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
> following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
> - Partition RRs
> - Move RRs out of the forwarding path
I'd find it odd if the RR were the nexthop for any signficant traffic,
in recent deployments I've done there's no fib to speak of excepting igp
routes installed on the RR itself.
> - Use a high-end processor with maximum memory
bgp addpath kicked up the memory requirements of the RR considerably
when we deployed it.
> - Use peer groups
> - Tune RR routers for improved performance.
>
> Since the book is a bit outdated (2004) I'm curious if these rules
> still apply to modern SP networks.
> What would be the reasoning behind keeping RRs out of the forwarding
> path? Is it only a matter of performance and stability?
>
> Thanks,
> Marcin
>
--3XfD2rvmwocspSMvWhjFwBaB93IsgmiRx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlSkHfMACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrIAjACgi9KX0uBCh46I83cR4b6eS54m
klUAoISiyND5OHBJ2acylnR+KdJ+kd3p
=y6K9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3XfD2rvmwocspSMvWhjFwBaB93IsgmiRx--
