[c-nsp] C6500 IPv6 redistribute with route-map?

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:55:07 PM Gert Doering 
wrote:

> I am *very* lazy, and this is why I don't deploy things I
> know I'm not needing.
> 
> And if I have 4 routers and know there won't be more, a
> route reflector is a textbook thing that other people
> can befit from, but for me, it's just added complexity,
> added configuration, added work, and new sources of
> problems.

Fair point - if you're absolutely sure your 4x routers will 
always remain 4x routers (my home network is pretty solid at 
2x wi-fi AP's and a single ADSL modem; and that will never 
change), then not needing route reflectors is fine.

However, most networks end up growing. Unfortunately, this 
takes most networks by surprise. We see this more often than 
you're likely to imagine.

> (I do deploy RRs in my network, but in a non-textbook
> configuration, because the textbook setup doesn't make
> sense for us - so I'm not opposed to RRs in general,
> just to blindly deploying what other people think
> everyone should do)

Again, if you're going to deploy a BGP domain of reasonable 
scale, route reflectors are certainly recommended. 

If you want to use confederations or full mesh iBGP, one is 
welcome to do that too.

Deployments are either dedicated (thank you, MPLS) or more 
text book (core routers also act as route reflectors). 
Either choice comes from the community, and less from text 
books, IMHO.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20131211/4e5e3a23/attachment.sig>