[c-nsp] Peering between route reflectors

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, April 07, 2014 09:51:41 PM Peter Rathlev wrote:

> We (enterprise setup, ~10k routes and very little churn)
> peer between ours, simply because I was always taught
> that iBGP non-RR-clients need full mesh. Now that you
> ask I can't put my finger on exactly why they should
> though. (Apart from RFC 4456 saying so of course.)

If you have two route reflectors that ALL your router use, 
then in practice, it may not really matter.

However, in most practical deployments, there are multiple 
route reflectors serving a fixed set of routes in a separate 
region of the network.

Not fully meshing the route reflectors would partition the 
network.

> http://rekrowten.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/bgp-route-refle
> ctor-and-why-is-cluster-id-obsolete/

Which is an issue if your route reflectors are in-path.

If you're running control-plane-only route reflectors (out-
of-path), then this should not be an issue.

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/20140407/c43987bb/attachment.sig>