[c-nsp] Peering between route reflectors

[Vitkovský Adam]

> Cydon Satyr
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Peering between route reflectors
> 
> 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?
> 

Yes I agree as this would apply to 90% of all the cases out there. 
I do however recommend a common cluster-id to future proof your design.
Even though RR clusters are useful only for the more sophisticated setups. 

Common cluster-id is actually useful whenever you have two or more RRs (in full or partial mesh) serving a client.
-so if RR1 gets an update from a client and sends that to all neighbors and one of the neighbors is a RR2 in the same cluster that RR2 drops the update (it doesn't reflect it back to the client that created the update). 

Regarding full-mesh between the RRs.
If you are using clusters you don't need exactly full mesh, just make sure node1 peers with node1s in all the other clusters.


adam