From: Greg Schmitt (GSchmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 00:16:57 GMT-3
Josh,
Hi! Actually, the route reflectors and the confederations are two distinct
ways of dealing with a large group of IBGP speakers. In the confederation
you split the AS into sub AS's. Each sub AS is speaking IBGP within itself,
and EBGP with the other sub AS's. Now within a sub AS, you could use route
reflectors to make the IBGP connections. Hmmm... almost sounds like a CCIE
lab question doesn't it! ;-)
BTW: It appears that something is messed up with your e-mail server/client.
There was no From: entry in your message (see below).
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:
Sent: None
Subject:
Subject: RE: BGP CONFEDERATIONS Question From: Joshua W. Watkins
<josh@mstates.com> User-Agent: IMHO/0.97.1 (Webmail for Roxen)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "'Michael Needham'"
<mineedha@cisco.com>, <> In-Reply-To:
<000d01bfd66b$627d3240$7c01000b@primustel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed,
14 Jun 2000 20:13:04 -700 To: "Greg Schmitt" <GSchmitt@thrupoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 10006
Message-Id: <E132P9U-0003x0-00@mail.xmission.com>
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