[j-nsp] BGP full mesh or route reflector

[Johan Borch]

Thanks, this is a quite small network at the moment. Three edge routers
(with full tables) and a bunch (9) PE routers (these will be able to handle
full table). I guess my only option right now is to run RR on my three edge
routers, not sure if that is a good idea.

A bunch of virtual RRs sound like a good solution. But we can't add more
cost at the moment, is it hard to migrate towards a RR design at a later
stage?

Johan

On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 3:39 PM Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:

> I would generally recommend RR on anything more than 2 router setup.
>
> RR gives redundancy on the signalling path, one iBGP flap doesn't
> cause an outage.
>
> With ORR and ADDPATH you're not really losing anything.
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 14:36, Johan Borch via juniper-nsp
> <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > In an SR/MP-BGP underlay, will it have a significant impact on device
> > performance if we use a full iBGP mesh instead of route reflectors or
> other
> > drawbacks? Let’s say we will end up with around 100 PE routers. These
> > routers will not carry an excessive number of prefixes (no full tables).
> > We can ignore the configuration part as configuration is auto-generated.
> >
> > Br
> > Johan
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
>
> --
>   ++ytti
>