Regarding 1: Are you using ip tcp path-mtu-discovery? That can drastically improve convergence time, as default neighbor MSS is around 500 bytes while it can be improved to ~ 1440 in most environments.
Regarding 2: I can imagine there are many reasons. I use weight exclusively for iBGP peers. Local preference is usually something I have used facing eBGP peers as prefixes enter the network and I want to manipulate attributes for my egress traffic. If I'm applying a route-map to iBGP prefixes (in my case, vrf import map) its for deterministic routing on that one device only. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 10:24 AM To: cisco-nsp Subject: [c-nsp] two quick bgp questions Hi, I had two quick BGP questions. 1) I know they're old, but Is it normal for a PRP-2 to take 10-12 minutes to receive a full routing table from a transit provider? Is there anything you can do to speed this up? the reason I am asking is because the BGP ROUTER process is staying up at 90% during the entire time it is downloading the routes from the provider. 2) Is there a specific reason why when using a route reflector it is better to use 'weight' rather than 'local preference' for the routes the route reflector is injecting? I am reviewing some old configurations that we are using for a 3rd party device and trying to figure out why we are using weight instead of local-pref for the routes it is sending into the routers. thanks, -Drew _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
