From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Tue Nov 20 2007 - 02:21:45 ART
The "best practices" used to be using same cluster IDs. But you are
correct, in that situation, any route shared between RRs would be discarded
by the presence of the cluster-id (and seen as a loop).
Currently, the "best practices" are to use different cluster-id's and let
the RRs peer in order to fill any partial gaps in your peering arrangements
and assure that all routes go everywhere.
But whichever effect you are WANTING to achieve, that's the way to go with
it!
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M
#153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Irene Wilson (irwilson)
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:38 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Bgp route reflector cluster ids
Can anyone give me an explanation of when one should use the same cluster id
versus different ones? I would guess that the same cluster id should only
be used when there are clients which are dual homed to both reflectors, and
therefore should only receive a single update for each NLRI?
Also, what should be the RRs relationship to each other when both are using
the same cluster id? My book shows a connection between them, but wouldn't
they throw out any routes learned from each other due to the presence of the
cluster id in the CLUSTER_LIST?
Thanks!
Irene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:30 ART