Controllerless Networks

I read some post that in most deployments the controller shouldn't be used as the default gateway for clients, but didn't see the reason behind that. This was in 2014. We now have a VMC and eventually will probably put it in NSX, having the default gateway be a DLR or ESG. However, for the time being, I want to keep it on the controller. Possibly will keep it on the controller for good unless there is some very horrible reason not to?

Any thoughts on this? If so, can you please provide documentation to support one way or the other?

Thank you!

I think the issue is that you don't want a controller to do any of the routing.  If you make a controller the default gateway of clients, you probably have to put a static route from your infrastructure to point to the controller so that traffic can find its way back to clients.  You typically want the controller to be an overlay that bridges client traffic to an already established network.

Thanks for the reply!

So is that more of an adminstrative issue? I don't mind it rooting and having static or dynamic routing on the uplinks to the underlay.

Or is there more on operational issues or hardware issues on the controller acting as the default gateway? I was thinking if it's a bad idea the controller shouldn't have that option or warn on the interface or documentation to steer away from it unless it's needed, but have not. Just checking into all the issues that may arise if we proceed down this path.

Thank you.

It is administrative.  If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and do it.

 

Others will want to do things like grow their networks or have redundant controllers and they will not be able to scale seamlessly.  There is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you want.

Cool. I appreciate the responses and help. Thanks again.