Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:32 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care.
>
> Agree.
>
> We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
> link capacity
>
>
> > Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream providers.
>
> Which is what I said at the end of my reply to you.
>
> The ring angle came up as part of a wider discussion earlier in this
> thread, where protecting the FIB makes sense.
>
>
> > Even if you’re in a ring if you’ve got two transit providers at some random point on the ring, it still probably 
> > doesn’t make a meaningful difference between full feeds from each vs. ECMP, because it’s pretty unlikely that the AS 
> > PATH length is affected by the ring length.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Mark.

Hence my confusion about your ring comments in the context of the message I was replying to.

Owen