[c-nsp] Peering between route reflectors

[Cydon Satyr]

Right so I think we all came to the same conclusion?

Taking in consideration that all edge routers peer with all RR (which I
forgot to mention in original post) AND none of them are in the forwarding
path, THEN:

1) RR should not peer with each other
2) The should all be in each separate cluster-id, although it doesn't
really matter


Agree?

Regards

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> 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.
>