Re: BGP redundant RR

From: Peter Van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 15 2001 - 09:34:36 GMT-3

• Next message: Chris Allen: "RE: Loopbacks and routing protocols"
• Previous message: andrew.2.shore@xxxxxx: "OT:Content Switch Servers"
• Maybe in reply to: Yves Fauser: "BGP redundant RR"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
You don't need to match the cluster ID's. It's actually recommended by many th
at you do not. This indeed creates two clusters, but functionally looks very
similar.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 8/15/2001 at 10:19 AM Yves Fauser wrote:

>Group,
>
>is there any magic about Redundant Route Reflectors other than :
>
>1. Give both RR an identical Cluster ID
>2. Give both RR the same peering relationsship with other RR clients an
>non RR clients
>
>I'm still searching for an hidden trap, but maybe I'm just getting to
>nervous.
>Thanks, Yves
>**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html

• Next message: Chris Allen: "RE: Loopbacks and routing protocols"
• Previous message: andrew.2.shore@xxxxxx: "OT:Content Switch Servers"
• Maybe in reply to: Yves Fauser: "BGP redundant RR"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:51 GMT-3