From: Joshua W. Watkins (josh@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 00:13:04 GMT-3
Sorry to keep beating this like a dead horse but I just happen to be
working on confederations right now. You mentioned something about
the route-reflector that made me think. So if you are doing a
confederation with a large IBGP AS and several others AS's, do you
need to still use a route-reflector to propagate routes to other IBGP
peers or does the confed accomplish this?
josh
> Michael,
>
> Correct. Think of it this way. You have a large AS. You don't want
to have
> to make a full mesh between all members (a requirement if using
IBGP). So...
> you decide to use BGP confederations (as opposed to route
reflectors). You
> split the large AS into sub AS's (careful how you use capitalization
and
> spell check here ;-)
>
> Members inside each sub AS are joined with IBGP statements. The sub
AS's are
> joined, at the boundaries, with EBGP statements and by the bgp
confed peers
> statement. The bgp confed id statement (on each member of the
confederation)
> joins all sub AS's together so that they appear to be one AS to
external
> neighbors (identified with the AS number used in the confed id
statement).
>
> Note: The external neighbors of the confederation use the AS number
of the
> confed id statement in their remote as statement.
>
> Does this make sense? It's getting late, and I've been up for a
while now!
> ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg Schmitt
>
> Internetwork Solutions Engineer
> ThruPoint, Inc. (formerly Total Network Solutions)
> Current: 703-394-4577 (Client Location)
> Voice: 410-349-9772
> Cell: 443-822-5183
> Pager: 888-773-0423 or pager.gschmitt@thrupoint.net
> e-mail: GSchmitt@thrupoint.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Needham [mailto:mineedha@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 8:19 PM
> To: Greg Schmitt
> Cc: CCIELAB@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: BGP CONFEDERATIONS Question
>
>
> So then the connections within the Confederation are really
considered
> EBGPbetween each confederation AS? Hence the need for EBGP multihop
if I
> use an address other than the local connection between two members
of
> the confereration with differnt peer IDs???
>
> Greg Schmitt wrote:
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Answers (hopefully correct) in line.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Greg Schmitt
> >
> > Internetwork Solutions Engineer
> > ThruPoint, Inc. (formerly Total Network Solutions)
> > Current: 703-394-4577 (Client Location)
> > Voice: 410-349-9772
> > Cell: 443-822-5183
> > Pager: 888-773-0423 or pager.gschmitt@thrupoint.net
> > e-mail: GSchmitt@thrupoint.net
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Needham [mailto:mineedha@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 4:48 PM
> > To: CCIELAB@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: BGP CONFEDERATIONS Question
> >
> > In a confederation can I still use update-source between two
different
> > portions of the confederated network. Ie between 5555 to 4444
neigbors
> > with a confed of 6?
> >
> > ===>Yes, they are separate autonomous systems (EBGP).
> >
> > If I continue to use a loopback as a neighbor address do I need
EBGP
> > multihop between to two AS's within the confed. to permit
> connectivity?
> >
> > ===>Yes, they are separate autonomous systems (EBGP).
> >
> > Does the next-hop commands still relative within the confed?
> >
> > ===>If you are talking about between 5555 and 4444, then probably
not.
> > Usually the different ASs are directly connected, and you have a
> default
> > route pointing to the loopback address.
> >
> > Finally, if a router is part of a confederation and has no other
> > connections other to a member of it's "native" conferedation, do
you
> > still need the confederation peer ID command???
> >
> > ===>Yes. All routers involved in a confederation must have the
peer
> > statement.
> >
> > I'm doing a rather complex LAb (self invented) and having issues
with
> > such... Thanks
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:42 GMT-3