On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 2013-02-04, Eduardo Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I am facing a strange behavior, > >> > > >> > I have the following scenario > >> > > >> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2 > >> > >> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is > >> missing. > > > > Really? It's difficult for me in this environment, do I have another > option? > > This doesn't mean that they need to be directly connected; iBGP sessions > can be run over multiple hops by default. It just means you need neighbour > configs for 1<>2, 1<>3, 2<>3. > > You could use a route reflector as others suggested but it's a bit > much for this setup imo; it will be a critical part of the network so > you'll probably want a redundant pair. These come into their own when the > number of routers goes up. > > Yeah, you are all right, multihop peering just did fine; as well as route-reflector for iBGP group just worked fine; yeah I need to read some bgp basics; usually I tend to learn by experience and this is when such a great community comes to hand; I learn more with you than books but certainly some bgp theory will be on my reading list for the weekends; thanks veryone who kindly replied, I will think about the expected growing rate of the network and complexity to decide if I go with peering or route-reflector for this environment; -- =========== Eduardo Meyer pessoal: [email protected] profissional: [email protected]
