From: Peter van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 14:09:07 GMT-3
The topology is fine. Nested route reflectors, or a route reflection
hierarchy, are a common design practise. Having a reflection topology that
does not match ones physical topology is also not entirely a bad
thing. Many designs utilize specific function reflection servers that
inherently will not mate with the physical topology. Keep in mind that we
are dealing with the flow of control traffic, and that the flow of data
traffic can be quite different.
At 11:07 AM 3/21/2002 -0500, Joe Higgins wrote:
>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