On 7/May/18 02:31, Aaron Gould wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are taking about with ORR,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-16
Mark.
I'm not sure what you are taking about with ORR, but I use dual RR's for a
redundant cluster with me ASR9k's in IOS XR, and I have them handling routes
for ...
Family l2vpn VPLS
Family vpnv4
Family vpnv6
...so my 6PE mpls l3vpn has been working fine
Aaron
> On May 6, 2018, at 7:20 AM, Mark T
On 6/May/18 12:29, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> one option potentially worth looking at here would be optimal route
> reflection. "Potentially" because vendors haven't been shipping ORR
> for long and some implementations are still working themselves through
> the design kink stage.
So our good
Mark Tinka wrote:
On 4/May/18 08:01, Erik Sundberg wrote:
My questions is how do I get traffic to go directly between the PE's without
going to the Core Routers?
1. Can I enable iBGP between the PE's in a full mesh to allow traffic between
the PE's without going to the core's. Or does this br
what to import is a better solution than trying to do router
filtering on the core routers.
Thanks for the info
Erik
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 6:38 PM
To: Erik Sundberg ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Route Reflector Client Design Question
On 4/May/18 08
On 4/May/18 08:01, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> My questions is how do I get traffic to go directly between the PE's without
> going to the Core Routers?
>
> 1. Can I enable iBGP between the PE's in a full mesh to allow traffic between
> the PE's without going to the core's. Or does this break the R
y, May 4, 2018 9:16 AM
To: Erik Sundberg
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Route Reflector Client Design Question
Erik,
Before I email my suggestions, can you clarify the followings;
Do Core1 and Core2 also provide the function of BDRs peering with your
upstream/s?
Or
Just acting as Core/RRs with 500M
You could optimize the packet hop count by making smaller
but more rings. For example, make one ring with
CORE1, CORE2, PE1, PE2, PE3.
And another ring with
CORE1, CORE2, PE4, PE5.
If you configure "route-reflector-client" on the CORE,
and mesh the clients, then you can additionally configure
"bgp
Erik,
Before I email my suggestions, can you clarify the followings;
Do Core1 and Core2 also provide the function of BDRs peering with your
upstream/s?
Or
Just acting as Core/RRs with 500Mbps of traffic traversing through them?
Cheers
Ahad
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Erik Sundberg
wrote
On 4 May 2018 at 07:01, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> 1. Can I enable iBGP between the PE's in a full mesh to allow traffic between
> the PE's without going to the core's. Or does this break the Route Reflector
> model?
If I have understood your design correctly then don't use
next-hop-self on the RR'
.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundberg
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 9:02 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Route Reflector Client Design Question
I have a RR Client design question..
CORE1---2x10G---C
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:03 PM Erik Sundberg
wrote:
> I have a RR Client design question..
>
>
> CORE1---2x10G---CORE2
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |10G Ring
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> PE1--PE2--
Hey Erik,
1) This messes up the design and introduces unnecessary complexity. As your
issue is not directly caused by having a RR topology, I’d avoid doing that.
2) That, IMHO, would be the optimal solution, assuming you don’t have enough
internal routes to overflow the TCAM of your PEs in the n
I have a RR Client design question..
CORE1---2x10G---CORE2
|
|
|
|
|
14 matches
Mail list logo