[190313] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 1GE L3 aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 23 02:43:23 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <99747e5c-c07f-cfc2-e759-9a4f6767ef50@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 23:43:15 -0700
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:32 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don=E2=80=99t really care.
>=20
> Agree.
>=20
> We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is =
enough
> link capacity
>=20
>=20
>> Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream =
providers.
>=20
> Which is what I said at the end of my reply to you.
>=20
> The ring angle came up as part of a wider discussion earlier in this
> thread, where protecting the FIB makes sense.
>=20
>=20
>> Even if you=E2=80=99re in a ring if you=E2=80=99ve got two transit =
providers at some random point on the ring, it still probably doesn=E2=80=99=
t make a meaningful difference between full feeds from each vs. ECMP, =
because it=E2=80=99s pretty unlikely that the AS PATH length is affected =
by the ring length.
>=20
> In my experience, rings are normally on-net backbones (Metro-E, =
e.t.c.).
> The terminating devices on the core side at each end of the ring will =
be
> your own equipment, and not another AS.
>=20
> Two links to your upstream won't matter whether it's in a ring or just
> plain point-to-point circuits, as there is no IGP relevance on such =
tails.
>=20
> Mark.
>=20
Hence my confusion about your ring comments in the context of the =
message I was replying to.
Owen
