From: Piotr (usaccie@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 00:47:33 ART
I just completed a similar task from a workbook.
r1, r2 and r3 are all in as 100.
r1 peers with r2 and r2 peers with r3. But R3 and R1 do not peer with each
other.
R2 needs to be configured as a route reflector for R1 and R3.
Thanks
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger RPF <rpf@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> Assume that we have an iBGP cloud with a couple of clients and two
> route-reflectors, connecting to each client. Is it correct that in order to
> get full redundancy for all "cases" the RR's should also peer together.
>
> I'm asking because I'm currently working on a LAB where the two RR's do not
> peer together and to my understanding (and after reading in "Odom"), I was
> thinking that the RR's in such a scenario should always have a peering
> session together...
>
> regards
>
> Roger
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2008 - 09:26:20 ART