From: Richard Davidson (rich@myhomemail.net)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 01:43:46 GMT-3
Hello Brian,
Thanks for the reply. My config is for a redundant ip
network. r1,2,3,4,cat1 and cat2 are all running bgp.
R1 and R2 can peer. r1,cat1 and r3 can peer. r2 cat2
and r3 can peer. I selected route reflecting so I
didn't have peer between the routers on the left and
the routers on the right. The big restriction is the
pix. routing needs to always remain synchronous or
the pix will drop the traffic. Does this sound like a
good design? Also, when the route is reflected, is it
always reflected unchanged?
Thanks
Rich
AS 100 AS200
| |
|--|--------------------|--|
| r1-rrc------------rrc-r2 |
| | | |
| pix--cat1-ospf-cat2--pix |
| | | |
| | AS300 | |
|_|_____________________|__|
r3 r4
\------ospf---------/
|
MSFC
--- pita40 <pita40@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello
> I thaught that this can cause a loop and as such you
> are adviced to use bgp
> cluster-id between them. ie use same id # to avoid
> loop possibility
> especially if they are reflecting same multiple
> client.
>
> Please help clarify
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian McGahan"
> <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
> To: "'Richard Davidson'" <rich@myhomemail.net>;
> "'groupstudy'"
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:25 PM
> Subject: RE: point a route-reflector-client to a
> route-reflector-client
>
>
> > Richard,
> >
> > This is a valid configuration, however it is
> typically not required.
> > A route reflector conforms to the following three
> rules:
> >
> > 1. if a route is learned from an EBGP peer it is
> candidate to be
> advertised
> > to any neighbor
> > 2. if a route is learned from a client peer it is
> candidate to be
> advertised
> > to all client peers, non-client peers, and EBGP
> peers.
> > 3. if a route is learned from a non-client peer it
> is candidate to be
> > advertised to all client peers and EBGP peers.
> >
> > (Note the term 'non-client' refers to an iBGP peer
> not configured with the
> > route-reflector-client statement)
> >
> > Therefore assuming that the route reflector is
> reflecting for its
> > iBGP peers, the peering between redundant
> route-reflectors will behave the
> > same whether they are clients or non-clients of
> each other.
> >
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
> >
> > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > Direct: 708-362-1418 (Outside the US and Canada)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Richard Davidson
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 5:10 PM
> > > To: groupstudy
> > > Subject: point a route-reflector-client to a
> route-reflector-client
> > >
> > > Is there amy known problems pointing a
> > > route-reflector-client to a
> route-reflector-client?
> > >
> > > R1-----R2
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > R3 R4
> > > **
> > > R1
> > > neighbor R2 route-reflector-client
> > > !
> > > R2
> > > neighbor R1 route-reflector-client
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > Richard Davidson
> > > Yahoo IM: r1davidson
> > > e-mail rich@myhomemail.net
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 08:25:41 GMT-3