On Monday, April 07, 2014 09:43:05 PM Lee Clark wrote: > Without the RR/RR peering there is no way to propagate > routes between clients A and B. Peering both clients to > both RRs that would solve the problem but is not > scalable in a large network where there are many RRs and > significant # of clients.
Agree that having 2x iBGP sessions per client scales poorer than one, but it scales better than a full mesh between routers, which is the problem route reflectors solve. As you rightly point out, YMMV, but from where I'm standing, 2x iBGP sessions per client to 2x different route reflectors is fine for us. It's a reasonable compromise between redundancy and administration. Mar.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
