Guys, Thanks all for quick reply.
When I asked the question I was following an idea where ALL PE routers peer with EACH RR. Because in any other case, my question wouldn't make sense. So with this in mind, if all PE routers peer with ALL RR, why should RRs peer between themselves, IF none of RRs are in forwarding path? Regards On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
