On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 21:01 +0200, Cydon Satyr wrote: > Basically, if there are multiple route reflectors NOT in the > forwarding path of the traffic, is there ANY reason to peer between > them? I don't see a reason why they should peer, but I'd like to get > this confirmed.
We (enterprise setup, ~10k routes and very little churn) peer between ours, simply because I was always taught that iBGP non-RR-clients need full mesh. Now that you ask I can't put my finger on exactly why they should though. (Apart from RFC 4456 saying so of course.) > Also, if they are NOT in the forwarding path, regardless of whether > they are peering between themselves or not, it shouldn't matter if > they are all in the same CLUSTER, correct ? You should not make them one cluster, since it introduces black-holing in certain failure scenarios. Let all clients peer with two RRs in each their cluster. A quick Google-search presents an explanation: http://rekrowten.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/bgp-route-reflector-and-why-is-cluster-id-obsolete/ -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
