From: omoruyi usuanlele (omo_u@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 18:06:30 GMT-3
Hi Padhu,
1. Route Reflectors - I believe you are right in your
interpretation of that ..... the cluster ID should be
the same within the same AS.
2. Client-to-Client Reflection: I also will like to
know why but I suppose that`s how it works - probably
for added flexibility. I agree that this defeats the
initial purpose of using RR (i.e scalabe and NOT
meshed)... will appreciate thoughts from others.
3. GTS - In addition to the CD, check out the below
link from Dr Peter Welcher :
http://www.mentortech.com/learn/welcher/papers/qos3.html
Try out some GTS configuration on your own and monitor
the results using the SHOW TRAFFIC-SHAPE command, that
will also help you get abetter feel of this feature.
Cheers n Goodluck // Omoruyi
--- "Padhu (LFG)" <padhu@steinroe.com> wrote:
> ...Let me see if the subject draws any attention or
> the scope of the list
> has changed ... -)
>
> 1. Route Reflectors - Is my understanding that
> within a AS if i have
> multiple RR Servers
> peering each other, then the cluster ID has to be
> the same is correct ?
>
> 2. From Halabi - The RR Clients should not be fully
> meshed ...( makes sense
> )...however if they are
> then Client to client reflection should be
> disabled on the RR server
> ...Here is my confusion...
> If clients are fully meshed why configure RR in
> the first place and then
> disable client to client
> reflection ?
>
> 3. I have searched all over CCO for info on GTS
> trying to understand that
> math part of understanding the
> sampling intervals etc to no avail...anyone can
> point me to some white
> papers or something ..The doc
> CD has one example on the ethernet ...
>
> Appreciate any inputs .
>
> Cheers,Padhu
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:36 GMT-3