[c-nsp] Small network Route Reflectors?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:20:17PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> Other than that I'm not sure what the problem is, simply because I have
> very little experience with IPv6[0]. Can anyone elaborate on that part?
> Is it related to multi-topology or some other (for me) strange things?
> Pardon me for changing the subject here.

Well, if you want an IPv6 route reflector, the box needs IPv6 connectivity
(while you can exchange IPv6 NLRI via IPv4 sessions, it needlessly adds 
complications).

So for ease of deployment, it would be most easy to just include the RR
in your IGP routing.  Now is where the fun starts if you use something
as an IGP (like IS-IS) where Cisco tends to have "funny" bundling in the
lower-end routers.  I have no idea how thinks look these days, but one
of the reasons why we decided not to use IS-IS (10 years ago) was that
our large installed base of 3640s would have needed an "IP PLUS" license...

OTOH, since the RR doesn't need to do any forwarding, it could just do
with a few static routes...  but whether that's sane network design is
a good question.

> [0]: My home network (and mail server) is finally IPv6 capable thanks to
>      Hurricane Electric's tunnel broker service. :-)

Congrats :-)

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/20110316/751a4ef8/attachment.pgp>