From: How Ming Low (ming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2001 - 03:24:06 GMT-3
To my understanding, route reflectors work well in both small to medium
environments. You can always add an additional route-reflector level.
Confederations are considered in large environments, because typically
they involve multiple IGP routing or administrative domains. These
networks have taken years to evolve into a large network (thru
expansion, mergers, acquisitions), making it impossible to migrate to a
standard, single IGP. Furthermore, the network maybe so large that it
is mandatory to split them into smaller IGP domains to maintain
stability anyway.
Hence, BGP confederations map nicely on top of the multiple IGP domains.
Hope that helps,
Ming
-----Original Message-----
From: Beamish, Richard [mailto:Richard.Beamish@GetronicsGov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:46 AM
To: 'Bob Dixon'
Cc: Ccie Lab Group (E-mail)
Subject: RE: BGP confeds versus RouteReflectors
It's my understanding that route reflectors are used in small
networks,confederations are used in larger networks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Dixon [mailto:bobdixon@mediaone.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:32 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: OT: BGP confeds versus RouteReflectors
Folks,
Anyone have any real-world pro's/con's for BGP confeds versus
RouteReflectors. It seems that routereflectors are easier to configure,
but I was not sure of the actual technical reasons to have 2
technologies that seem to address the same problem.
Thanks,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:38 GMT-3