From: Nathan Cruz (cciesoon@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 18:37:05 GMT-3
Great, thanks everyone this is what I was looking for.
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: <perkinsr@WellsFargo.COM>
To: <CCIElab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: DLSW Peer Groups
> 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
**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