From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 10:47:19 GMT-3
RFC 1966 introduced route reflection
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1966.txt?number=1966
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Cash" <cash2001@swbell.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Conventional BGP Speakers
> I am reading the BGP Case studies on the cisco site:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/16.html#A24.0
>
> And it states :
> "It is normal in an AS to have BGP speakers that do not understand the
> concept of route reflectors. We will call these routers conventional BGP
> speakers. The route reflector scheme will allow such conventional BGP
> speakers to coexist. These routers could be either members of a client
> group or a non-client group. This would allow easy and gradual migration
> from the current IBGP model to the route reflector model. One could
> start creating clusters by configuring a single router as RR and making
> other RRs and their clients normal IBGP peers. Then more clusters could
> be created gradually.
> It then shows a diagram and then states:
> "In the above diagram, RTD, RTE and RTF have the concept of route
> reflection. RTC, RTA and RTB are what we call conventional routers and
> cannot be configured as RRs."
> My question is this.for what reason would a router not be able to be
> configured as a Route Reflector. Is route reflection a Cisco
> proprietary feature or am I just reading this wrong. Searching on the
> site, I see the commands was available from IOS 11.1.
> What exactly would define a conventional router?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:39 GMT-3