From: Marc La Porte (marc.a.laporte@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 2009 - 07:30:11 ARST
Is not the question regarding a full-mesh BGP solely pertaining to iBGP, and
not both iBGP and eBGP?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:23, Bogdan Sass <bogdan.sass@catc.ro> wrote:
> A student of mine asked me a question today. One of those questions that
> seem simple, but when you think about them you realize you don't really know
> the answer. So I decided to come here for some guidance :)
>
> The question was: "Why do we need a full-mesh between _all_ the
> BGP-running routers in an AS?" (we're not talking about confederations or
> RRs here - just basic BGP). He proposed the following alternative:
> -we have an AS with edge routers (running both iBGP and eBGP), and
> transit routers (iBGP only).
> -we do full-mesh BGP between the edge routers, and only connect each
> transit router to each edge router.
> -for 4 edge and 8 transit routers, this takes the number of BGP
> connections from 12*11/2=66 to 4*3/2+8*4=38. Quite a significant change.
>
> Try as I might, I was unable to find a topology in which his solution
> would fail. I'm hoping someone more experienced with BGP could help me...
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Bogdan Sass
> CCAI,CCSP,JNCIA-ER,CCIE #22221 (RS)
> Information Systems Security Professional
> "Curiosity was framed - ignorance killed the cat"
>
>
> 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 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:40 ARST