nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:00:33 +0200
Hey, in-band, out-of-band is bit of misnomers to me. You mean in-path or out-of-path. 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. Main advantage of in-path is maturity and simplicity, you don't need ORR and you might not need AddPath. On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:37 PM Mohammad Khalil <eng.mssk () gmail com> wrote:
Dears Am trying to find some documents and practical implementations regarding bgp topological vs centralized route reflector(In-band vs out-of-band) Any good shares are appreciated
-- ++ytti
Current thread:
- BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mohammad Khalil (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Alain Hebert (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Aaron Gould (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)