From: perkinsr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 17:59:20 GMT-3
There is also value in setting up one border router and group. In this
scenario you are simply alleviating the need to have multiple peer
statements for all other routers and also keeping the SSP traffic between
peers down. The hub or border router keeps track of who can get to what and
redirects other routers making requests. The border router needs no remote
peer statements and the spoke routers only have to be configured to peer
with that border router.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Rybaczyk [mailto:psrsam@globalins.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:02 PM
To: Nathan Cruz
Cc: CCIElab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW Peer Groups
Nathan,
I am assuming that you are talking about the DLSW border peers and border
peer
groups. Here are my thoughts beginning with the fundumentals of DLSW:
1. You need at least two DLSW peers to make DLSW work for non-routable
traffic
across an IP backbone.
2. If on each side of the backbone you have X number of routers (instead of
just
one) and you need full DLSW connectivity between each router on one side
with
every router on the other side, then you start running into the problem of
too
many connections across the cloud, i.e., the any-to-any issue.
3. However, if on each side of the cloud, one out of X routers (say router
Y) is
chosen as the border peer, and all of the others on each side configure Y as
its
remote peer, and Y from one side peers with Y from the other side, then
you've
accomplished the objective of reducing the number of connections across the
cloud.
4. The connections on each side of the cloud between Y and the rest become
dynamic
(pod = peer on demand, when you view them with show dlsw peers)
5. So to relate this to route reflectors, there are similarities, but
differences
as well. The biggest difference that I see is that you can have a single
route
reflector in a transit AS, but you need to have at least two DLSW border
peers,
one on each side of the cloud.
If anyone sees any flaws here, please correct. With 10 days to go before 1st
attempt, I am working on refining many concepts and would not want to
mislead
anyone.
Thanks.
Peter
Nathan Cruz wrote:
> Hi, I'm working on peer groups in DLSW and I'm trying to get a concept
down.
>
> Question if I had 3 or four routers could I make them into ONE (1) peer
group
> and have any to any connectivity?
>
> I guess it boils down to do the routers within a peer group have dynamic
> access to all the other routers in the same peer group or is this "any to
any"
> connectivity only to routers in other peer groups?
>
> I'm imagining this to be sort of like route-reflectors in BGP? But I'm
not
> sure.
>
> Any help, thoughts, or comments appreciated.
>
> Nathan
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:52 GMT-3