[j-nsp] Route reflection design consideration

[Stéphane Grosjean]

Thanks Peter and Alain,


Yes, of course, I'm considering different and unique cluster-id and different groups also.

That point was not mentioned in the rfc nor the documentation I went through, but I finally found it in the good old juniper's bible "complete reference".

Okay, I can have a router to be RR for different clusters. Regarding the full mesh between the various RR, all in a different group without cluster definition is the best practice?


Regards,


Stephane.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Peter Moyer [mailto:pmoyer at juniper.net] 
Envoyé : jeudi 13 décembre 2007 20:37
À : Stéphane Grosjean; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Objet : RE: [j-nsp] Route reflection design consideration

Unique cluster-IDs per RR is the best practice, and fully mesh the RRs. There are corner cases where RRs with same cluster-IDs can cause a black-hole.

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stéphane Grosjean
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:54 AM
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] Route reflection design consideration

Hi folks,


I'm scratching my head with some RR configuration, and I'd like your feeling on it. Is it correct to configure one router to be RR for different clusters? Does it reflects correctly routes from one cluster to another?

Let's have an example: You have on one side a dual RR (router A and B, cluster 1) for some routers, on the other side two other RR (router C and D, cluster 2) for some other routers. As they are all part of the same AS, usually you full mesh the 4 RRs together.

Now, you want to create for some reasons another cluster (cluster 3) including those 4 RRs (routers A, B, C and D) and some new clients.

Does it work to have on A, B, C and D 2 different clusters configured? Is there any recommendation regarding the peering between those 4 RRs (a full mesh within that new cluster, or a full mesh in another group without cluster definition)? I guess having them in the same cluster could reduce the routes exchange between them (same cluster-list so they drop the routes learned from the cluster). Will (A,B) reflects to cluster 1 the routes learned from cluster 3, and vice-versa?

I guess it works, but I have never seen such a design, nor configuration anywhere...


Kind Regards,


Stephane.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp