From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 17:39:03 GMT-3
At 02:45 PM 4/28/2004, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>At 2:27 PM -0400 4/28/04, Peter van Oene wrote:
>>The short answer is that this is an @#$@'ing ridiculous scenario that is
>>a complete waste of your time. If Cisco wants to test on it, then shame
>>on them for forcing you to study such a moronic topic. There is nothing
>>anywhere near a practical requirement for such a topology and
>>synchronization is years more outdated than many of the already
>>deprecated items that have found space on the CCIE lab.
>
>Peter, you are going to have to learn that holding in emotions isn't the
>same as hiding internal routes. ;-)
haha.. I decided on a little emphasis as this question keeps popping
up. It's a shame to see so many smart and hard working folks studying such
obviously unproductive configurations. I truly wish the test was more
about building networks well (notwithstanding the unrealistic time
pressure) instead of testing ones ability to build complex routed card
houses. No one lives in card houses, and it stands to reason that those
who build them, will be want of work more often than not.
>That said, I am in complete agreement. Perhaps it's worth pointing out
>some of the historic context in which synchronization was introduced. It
>was assumed, in a transit AS, that there were very few routers that spoke
>BGP, as opposed to today's service provider topologies are generally
>BGP-everywhere. The main exception would be primarily MPLS routers in the
>core, which really are providing tunnels to the BGP speakers.
>
>There also was a historic observation that the IGP would carry all routes.
>People may have noticed there's an OSPF LSA, Type 8 "database overflow",
>that no one seems to use. It was meant for this purpose. In _OSPF: Anatomy
>of an Internet Routing Protocol_, John Moy discusses the Type 8, observed
>it was never used in a production implementation, and has been superceded
>by iBGP.
Interesting. Hadn't read about the type 8 before. I think I've posted a
few messages similar to your above note indicating where Route Reflection
and Synch solve problems in entirely different networks. Their mutual
exclusivity should be preserved, and marrying them is most unnatural, and
certainly unintended by the creator ;-) I'm sure Bush would be against it too.
Pete
>>At 12:39 PM 4/28/2004, Edwards, Andrew M wrote:
>>>I'm trying to understand methods to keep synchronization on in BGP and
>>>provide BGP to OSPF redistribution with route reflectors.
>>>
>>>You know the problem where the route reflector server receives an update
>>>from a route reflector client that is redistributing BGP to OSPF.
>>>
>>>When the route reflector server gets the update, it reflects that update
>>>to all other RR clients but changes the BGP ID to itself.
>>>
>>>Obviously the other BGP RR clients get the BGP update but the OSPF
>>>router ID and BGP ID do not match on the clients so the BGP route is not
>>>marked
>>>As a best path ">"
>>>
>>>So the question I have is what methods are available to make this work
>>>with synchronization on and using route reflectors?
>>>
>>>Is the answer go to full mesh or transfer to confederations?
>>>
>>>I'm stumped on how to change the BGP router-id to the originators BGP
>>>router ID on the RR server.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the input... or clearing up my confusion.
>>>
>>>Andy
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:57 GMT-3