On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 19:59, Hoogen <hoogen82_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Well.. My topology was to deploy a RR... and as Jack pointed out by enabling
> the second command its similar to having no RR.. and as Mark said would
> reflect to non-clients... But the point I am trying to check is whether we
> need reflection between R3 and R4... The pdf doesn't seem to B say what if
> there are no routes on either of these two routers and actually do not need
> a peering or pass updates.. It only says if client-to-client reflection is
> disabled we need to have a full mesh?
> So no matter what if the reflection is disabled and even if routes aren't
> being sent across do we need a full mesh.. Or can we skip the part of having
> to do peering between R3-R4.
The purpose of peering between routers is to exchange routes. If there
are no routes to be exchanged, you can skip establishing peering.
It's a bad design choice, but if you are studying for CCIE, then bad
design is not an issue (common sense sometimes does not apply there -
just understanding how things work ;-) ).
-- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Live Assistance, Please visit: http://www.ipexpert.com/chat eFax: +1.810.454.0130 Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.netReceived on Wed Dec 02 2009 - 20:08:31 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jan 02 2010 - 11:11:07 ART