From: Larson, Chris (Contractor) (Chris.Larson@xxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 16:16:31 GMT-3
Of course if the purpose is to fullfill a requirement of the CCIE where a
full mesh or other methods are restrictedn , then would this make a good
solution?
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter van Oene [mailto:pvo@usermail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:14 PM
To: Bauer, Rick; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: BGP OSPF sync with Route Reflecter
Well, first off, a routed network where each router is a confederate sub-as
would deliver lots of sub-optimal routing. Further, reconfiguring one's
network into such a kludge simply to make an antiquated feature work is
really not something I'd advise.
I would much rather full mesh my IBGP than confederate in this ugly case.
Pete
At 02:09 PM 4/29/2002 -0400, Bauer, Rick wrote:
>Why is that?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter van Oene [mailto:pvo@usermail.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:29 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: BGP OSPF sync with Route Reflecter
>
>
>if this is the solution, I would suggest that the question is seriously
>flawed.
>
>At 08:58 AM 4/29/2002 -0400, Bauer, Rick wrote:
> >Actually, a confederation is the way to work around the sync issue, if
you
> >can not disable sync, or put the routes in the igp, or add statics to the
> >ibgp peer receiving the routes. HTH....
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Joe Higgins [mailto:netsat@optonline.net]
> >Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 9:03 AM
> >To: Michael Jia
> >Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: BGP OSPF sync with Route Reflecter
> >
> >
> >This scenario of bgp and ospf over a route reflector setup in absolute
>terms
> >cannot work because of the inherent design of ospf and bgp. Previous
posts
> >explain why this is so. I suggest that if one finds oneself in a
situation
> >where they find it impossible to put in the "no synchronization" command
> >then
> >they should start thinking outside the "BOX" and possible peer the
route
> >reflector clients with each other, or run igrp or eigrp on top of ospf on
> >the
> >route reflector portion of their network. This horse has been beaten up
> >pretty
> >badly. Good luck.
> >Joe H.
> >
> >Michael Jia wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a general question regarding BGP and OSPF sync when router
> >reflector
> > > is
> > > used. I've seen some threads discuss it before on the list.
> > >
> > > The scenerio is like :
> > >
> > > R1 ---- R2------ R3
> > >
> > > All R1, R2, R3 are in same AS, R1 and R3 peer to external AS.
> > > R2 is the route reflecter with iBGP peered to both R1 and R3.
> > > R1 and R3 doesn't peer with each other.
> > > OSPF is used as IGP for R1, R2 and R3.
> > >
> > > When a eBGP route is redistritued at R1 into OSPF. The route's
> > > BGP id is R1, its OSPF id is also R1.
> > > iBGP syncs at R2 without question.
> > >
> > > However, it doesn't sync at R3. Because from R3, it sees iBGP id as
R2,
> > > the Reflector's ID, but OSPF id is still R1. (Am I right? please
correct
> >me
> > > if my logic is wrong. At a live lab, if R3 peer with R1 , the route
will
> > > sync
> > > immediatly. In R3's routing table, it clearly has the route and the
next
> >hop
> > > route as OSPF routes. )
> > >
> > > The question is, how to make it sync without using "no sync" at R3?
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:22 GMT-3