From: Sasa Milic (smilic@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 18:58:41 GMT-3
> Full mesh in this context tends to be virtual in most networks
> as the use of route reflection is very common.
Peter, you either have full mesh of iBGP routers, or don't.
Forget about "this context"; in order to have full mesh you
have to peer with all other iBGP routers. RR is designed to
eliminate full mesh, so you cannot say that you have full mesh
if you use RR.
See rfc1966, BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP.
> However, non IBGP participating transit routers are not at all
> common, and for the most part no possible to achieve assuming near full
> prefix awareness.
>
> At 12:10 PM 6/10/2002 -0700, Sasa Milic wrote:
>
> >Well, that's not full mesh.
> >
> >Full mesh is when every iBGP router has all other iBGP routers
> >as neighbors. That doesn't mean that they are directly connected.
> >And if they are not directly connected, then you need synch
> >because of IGP router(s) between them.
> >
> >
> >Peter van Oene wrote:
> > >
> > > full mesh ibgp to me means all routers in the as run bgp and are included
> > > synthetic or otherwise in the mesh.
> > >
> > > At 10:11 AM 6/10/2002 -0700, Sasa Milic wrote:
> > > >Even if you have full mesh ibgp, you can have igp only transit
> > > >routers, and need for synch.
> > > >
> > > >Peter van Oene wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > synch does address non full mesh transit networks. it was designed to
> > > > > support networks where igp only routers might exist in the transit pa
th
> > > > > between bgp speakers. it adds no value to full mesh ibgp networks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:31 GMT-3