02-10-2019 10:57 PM
Hello All,
I am running a Cisco 9k spine (2 No.) Leaf(20 No.) architecture. Its completely a MP- BGP EVPN VXLAN design. My concern is with integration of External Routing nodes(router and firewall) for WAN. I want this connectivity at spine instead of Border leaf.
Is this architecture is acceptable ?
What are the concern if I go with this design?
Thanks in advance
10-17-2019 07:59 AM
Yes you can its called Border Gateway on Spine (BGW on spine). Its supported in DCNM as well (latest couple of versions at least).
10-17-2019 12:13 PM
Border Gateways are used for L2 extension or extending your fabric to another fabric. Doesn't seem this is what there looking for.
10-17-2019 12:10 PM
I'd heavily advise against this. You should keep the spines as simple as possible. If you try and connect anything besides your leafs to the spines, now you have to create the VRFs on your Spines and additional BGP config, etc, etc. Yuck!
I'd recommend if you have a core that your border leafs are connected to, connect there or better yet - a wan services L3 switch pair that are connected to the core.
03-17-2020 10:16 AM
Is that a concern though with the easy fabric automation provided by DCNM?
03-17-2020 10:43 AM
If your asking is it a concern to muddy your Spine with other tasks such as terminating firewalls and route peering with WAN edge devices, because you manage them with DCNM...Yes - It's a major concern. Keep the spines as simple as possible - that's the beauty of a spine/leaf fabric. Spines dumb, Leafs smart. With our without DCNM does not change this.
03-17-2020 08:29 PM
03-17-2020 08:31 PM
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide