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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:01:23PM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > "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.
> 
> Those are compelling arguments, though I'm not sure we're big enough for
> that. 

Mmmh, interesting answer.  I'd not consider our network to be "big",
with 4 "POPs" with two cores each and "a handful" (2..8) edge routers
each...

> The network is physically partial mesh, and the dozen PoPs aren't
> geographically hierarchical in relation to the main datacenters.

Basically, what we did is declare "the two boxes with the links to
'the outside world'" to be "core", and all the rest is "edge"...

> (Oh, and we were advised by expensive consultants to introduce seperate
> RRs. And buy Nexus.)

Heh.  Now that's a good reason indeed :-)

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/20110723/0d24e748/attachment.pgp>