Re: Route Reflection

Thanks Marko...

-Hoogen

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 20:23, Hoogen <hoogen82_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > This wasn't for real design :) This was for my studies.. the "what if"
> > questions that keep popping up in my head.. Cause I would assume the exam
> > would probably want us to know most options..
> > Mark when you say bad design choice.. do you mean disabling the route
> > reflection or having no peering between R3 and R4... ?? I would assume
> that
> > having no peering between R3 and R4 is not a bad choice since there is no
> > BGP routes installed on them that needs to be passed on..Or is this a
> > mandatory desing requirement that when reflection is disabled we need to
> > have full mesh peering.
>
> When I say bad design, I mean the combination of the two things in
> this particular case. Yes, you do not have any routes right now and it
> looks like a good idea. However, in real networks, things change.
> Configuring no reflection and no peering could cause you gruesome
> troubleshooting in the middle of the night, years from now, when ideas
> fade and paper turns pale yellow.
>
> For learning - this is a fine scenario. If there are no routes to be
> exchanged, there is no point in having peering between them. The will
> learn what they need from their RR and RR will let non-clients what
> they need to know.
>
> P.S. I'll allow it once, second time you get a warning - there is an
> "o" at the end ;-).
>
> --
> 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.net
Received on Wed Dec 02 2009 - 12:33:57 ART