Best practices for Redundant Route Reflector design say that if the there are multiple RR deployed you should use different cluster-id and your RR-client should follow the physical link to the RR this should prevent routing loops in the case its deployed on normal bgp ip4.
The case is different with vpnv4 because of mpls you should not have any loops what will be the correct design if you have 3 RR for vpnv4? Which technology to use in case of failure detection and fast recovery? Deploy MPLS-TE with Fast-rout "link-protection the links to the from the RR-Client to the RR and from RR to the RR-Client back" or to use PfR "OER" for failure detection and reroute over a failure? or do you suggest any different technology. The network should carry low-latency traffic such a voice and should recover from failure between RR and RR-client as fast as possible?
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and Looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
