nanog mailing list archives
RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)
From: Phil Lavin <phil.lavin () cloudcall com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:03:55 +0000
They are normal 1st gen trio boxes, same as MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 originals were. You may be confused about the fact that their control plane is freescale, instead of intel.
Sorry, yes - you're right. Re-convergence times are, however, still awful. Though if you're not handling a lot of routes, that may not be a huge problem for you
Current thread:
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector, (continued)
- 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: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) adamv0025 (Feb 19)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Jason Lixfeld (Feb 19)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector adamv0025 (Feb 19)