[c-nsp] Number of route reflectors, best practice?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:56:13AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> Is there another/better way of addressing this problem than adding extra
> redundancy?
[..]
> We have a very small routing table at the moment (~10k prefixes, largest
> VRF has ~2k, no Internet), and I'd gladly sacrifice some convergence
> time for extra stability.

"Why have central RRs at all"?

"Just because everybody else does it" is a no-go in my book :-) - we
currently have a design similar to your current design, that is, all
"core" routers (8) are full-meshed, and all "edge" routers in a given
POP use the "core" as RRs.  Edges have only edge-routes plus default,
so the computational effort on the RRs is not that bad.  And we don't
need extra boxes...

If both cores fail in a POP, that POP is down anyway, and I don't need
to worry about RR reachability either.

gert

-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110721/3ed24fb2/attachment.pgp>