From: Kristian Bjoernskov (krbj-ccielab@xxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 06:07:16 GMT-3
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 Giveortake@aol.com wrote:
> Here goes..
>
> R4 is hub router and it has a PVC to R5 and R6. There is no PVC between R5
&
> R6. It is a point-to-multipoint. R5 & R6 also have Ethernets and are
> connected to R7 who also has an eth on the same subnet.
>
> R4 is peered to R5 and R6. R5 and R6 area peered to R7. R5&R6 are NOT
> peered.
>
> So the question is, do I need to use the route-reflector-client on R4? I do
> not believe so.
If R4, R5 and R6 is in the same AS and you have no peering between R5 and
R6 you will need to use R4 as route reflector or you will need to
configure confederations.
Internaly in an AS and in the CCIE lab you will need connectivity between
all the routers and if you do not have a pvc between the two you will need
one static map from R5 to reach R6 via R4 and visa versa. Otherwice you
will need something like "no synchronaization" on all 3 routers and
"next-hop-self" on all the peers.
> When I do use the route-reflector client I get strange results on R5 and R6
> when I do a show ip bgp. R7 is advertising a 192.x.x.x network. When I
> use the Route-reflector client under the above scenerio, R6 shows TWO paths
> to the 192.x.x.x network. One directly to R7 and the other through
> R5......... When I do the same show ip bgp on R5, it shows only ONE
> path to the 192 network via R7. If nothing else, I figured they ought to
> both have two ways but they dont.
His sounds like the no connectivity problem between R5 and r6 as described
above.
By default you will need full connectivy between all routers internally in
an AS no matter if you use route reflectors or not. In some cases this
does not apply to confederations.
kregs,
Kristian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:21 GMT-3