From: Alexei Monastyrnyi (alexeim@orcsoftware.com)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2006 - 15:55:17 GMT-3
Eliminating L2 drawing :-) we make picture more clear.
R2 <-> R1 <-> SW1 <-> SW2
If I got you right, end devices (R2 and SW2) have to have one iBGP
peer, while middle devices (R1 and SW1) can have two iBGP peers.
If we use RR, both R1 and SW1 have to be RR-clients for one another.
A.
on 16/03/2006 18:51 Victor Cappuccio wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> First let me try to draw the topology to make the question. (IeLab1).
>
> R2 ------ Fr ------ R1 ----- Ethernet ------ Sw1 ---- Sw2
>
> All devices are running iBGP but they just have 1 BGP Session to each
> other (not full meshed)
>
> R2 == ibgp === R1 === ibpg == Sw1 == ibgp == Sw2
>
> So there must be in this network, routers to function as distribution
> center for the BGP Prefixes since iBGP is not fully meshed and the
> basic requeriment of iBGP is that all Neighbors in the AS must be
> fully mesh, and that could be relaxed with RR or Confederation. .-
> That's fine I think
>
> Ok Internetwork Experts Solutions makes Sw2 RR Client of Sw1 and R2
> RR Client of R1.
> But what if R1 is configured to be client of Sw1, I change the initial
> IE Configuration, and I have the same prefixes with or without Sw1
> being a RR for R1 in the BGP Table..
>
> The only difference that I can see is that:
>
> 1st. IE Solution
>
> R2 =(cl)= ibgp ==(rr)= R1 === ibpg == Sw1 =(rr)= ibgp ==(cl) =Sw2
> In this case is more optimized since I only have 2 Routes configured
> as Clientes (Cl)
>
> 2nd. My Crazy World
>
> R2 =(cl)= ibgp =(rr) == R1 =(cl)== ibpg ==(rr) Sw1 =(rr)== ibgp
> ==(cl)= Sw2
> In this case I have 3 neighbors configured as Clients (cl)
>
>
> Any comments are appreciated
> Thanks!
> Victor.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:39 GMT-3