> Cydon Satyr > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:08 PM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Peering between route reflectors > > 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? >
Yes I agree as this would apply to 90% of all the cases out there. I do however recommend a common cluster-id to future proof your design. Even though RR clusters are useful only for the more sophisticated setups. Common cluster-id is actually useful whenever you have two or more RRs (in full or partial mesh) serving a client. -so if RR1 gets an update from a client and sends that to all neighbors and one of the neighbors is a RR2 in the same cluster that RR2 drops the update (it doesn't reflect it back to the client that created the update). Regarding full-mesh between the RRs. If you are using clusters you don't need exactly full mesh, just make sure node1 peers with node1s in all the other clusters. adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
