From: network king (networkkingccie@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 2009 - 11:50:38 ARST
Bogdan,
I think n(n-1)/2 holds good for the edge and not the transit routers as ibgp
mesh in the transit is not going to add anything...
Hope it helps
regards
vanesh k
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Bogdan Sass <bogdan.sass@catc.ro> wrote:
> Joseph L. Brunner wrote:
>
>> I love when students are eager enough to do this (can you spare some great
>>> students like this!?)
>>>
>>>
>> I also love this sort of questions - they're the kind that make you
> think :)
> And no, I'm not sharing those students - I'm trying to keep them all for
> myself! >:) :-P
>
> hmmm this sounds a lot like route reflectors... actually I teach rr this
>>> way...
>>>
>>>
>> That is exactly what I said - however, the question is "why do we need
> route-reflectors when simply choosing the peerings this way would be
> sufficient?".
>
> Do this, make a lab to show them the use of a cluster-id and it will become
>> apparent- all this was thought of and hashed out a long time ago ;)
>>
>>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this - isn't the cluster-id relevant only
> for RR configurations? Could you please elaborate a little on this?
>
> I'm sure that this was thought of a long time ago - and I'm sure there is
> a reason why this type of topology is not used. However, I was unable to
> find this reason, so I turned to this list for help :)
>
> 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