From: Diment, Andrew (adiment@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 13:38:49 GMT-3
This would not be a good design. One of the purposes for route reflectors
is so you don't have to make a fully meshed bgp peered network when the
physical network is not fully meshed. Like in a hub and spoke setup, the
hub should be the reflector not one of the spokes. If the spoke was the
reflector and it went down, all of BGP is toast.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Higgins [mailto:netsat@optonline.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:07 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: bgp route reflection
Is the following bgp route reflector configuration valid and/or good
practice?
r1, route reflector, > r2, route reflector client, > r3 route reflector
client. I have read that the route reflector topology should match the
physical topology of the network. In the above example it does not
match as router r3 must go through r2 to get to its route reflector,
r1. Any insight will be appreciated..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:16 GMT-3