Right so I think we all came to the same conclusion? Taking in consideration that all edge routers peer with all RR (which I forgot to mention in original post) AND none of them are in the forwarding path, THEN:
1) RR should not peer with each other 2) The should all be in each separate cluster-id, although it doesn't really matter Agree? Regards On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, April 07, 2014 09:51:41 PM Peter Rathlev wrote: > > > 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.) > > If you have two route reflectors that ALL your router use, > then in practice, it may not really matter. > > However, in most practical deployments, there are multiple > route reflectors serving a fixed set of routes in a separate > region of the network. > > Not fully meshing the route reflectors would partition the > network. > > > http://rekrowten.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/bgp-route-refle > > ctor-and-why-is-cluster-id-obsolete/ > > Which is an issue if your route reflectors are in-path. > > If you're running control-plane-only route reflectors (out- > of-path), then this should not be an issue. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
