From: George Spahl (g.spahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 20:55:29 GMT-3
Greetings,
This is similar to Dmitry's thread, but more general since it doesn't
involve the OSPF vs. BGP router id (I don't think!), however I think it
may be the same problem. I don't know why I haven't noticed this
before, but when a prefix is being reflected by a RR from one RR client
to the next RR client and the prefix isn't synchronized on the RR is it
forbidden for it to reflect it?
For example, R1 is the RR, R2 and R3 are the RR clients. A prefix is
added to R2 with a "network" statement (and no other routing protocol
carries this route). R2 sends it to the route reflector who refuses to
reflect it to R3 since it's not "synchronized" on the RR. Is this
normal or is there something else going on here?
It seems like that since Route Reflection in general is supposed to
substitute for an IBGP full mesh that even though it may not be
"synchronized" on the RR, the RR should still reflect it to other RR
clients, even if he doesn't enter it into his own ip routing table,
since this is what would happen if it were an IBGP full mesh anyway. At
least, I would think that's how you would want it to work. If this is
really the way it works does anyone have an idea why they would want to
work this way?
By the way, this is from the interesting lab that Brian McGahan put out
on the list for us. It's the basic BGP setup, section F.1 and F.2.
Thanks,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:38 GMT-3