Re: Route Reflection

The scoring is a result based checking.

As long as you fulfill he task's requirements, and do no break other tasks,
you should be safe.

HTH,
Dan
Troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Hoogen <hoogen82_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Appreciate that Dan...
>
> That's exactly what I am trying to do.. But I am also trying to understand
> if we would lose points when there is no peering between R2-R3... This
> peering is unnecessary since R2 doesn't have any bgp routes and R3 also does
> not have any bgp routes. They receive all other routes through R1...
>
> From what I have read, they seem to be indicating that we need to have full
> mesh when client-to-client reflection is disabled. But I would assume that
> in this case where there are no bgp routes that need to be propagated to R3
> from R2.. We do not need a ibgp peering. But would we lose points
> for omitting this configuration?
>
> Thanks,
> Hoogen
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Danshtr <danshtr_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> that command can be used to reduce the amount of iBGP peering.
>>
>> Look at this example:
>> http://dans-net.com/no_client_to_client.png
>>
>> The green lines represent iBGP sessions.
>>
>> R2 and R3 are RR clients of R1.
>>
>> A route coming from R4 will be sent to both R2 and R3, and vice-versa.
>>
>> Because R2 and R3 have iBGP session between them, they do not need the
>> client to client RR service from R1.
>>
>> We have saved the need for R2 and R3 to peer to R4.
>>
>>
>> HTH,
>> Dan
>> Troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:48 PM, jack daniels <jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Router(config-router)# *no bgp client-to-client reflection *
>>>
>>> Disables client-to-client route reflection
>>>
>>>
>>> what is the use of this command , this says
>>>
>>> Disables client-to-client route reflection
>>> ......so RR acts as normal IBGP router , so its same as not configuring
>>> router as RR.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Hoogen <hoogen82_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > +--R3
>>> > R1--R2--|
>>> > +--R4
>>> >
>>> > Let's say that all these routers are in a single AS.. R1 has some BGP
>>> > routes
>>> > and is peering with R2.. Now R2 is a route reflector..It is peering
>>> with R3
>>> > and R4. Now R4 and R3 do not have any BGP routes that need to be sent
>>> to
>>> > the
>>> > other BGP neighbors... Now if the route reflection between clients have
>>> > been
>>> > asked to be disabled, do we now have to have peering between R4 and R3?
>>> I
>>> > would assume that since there is no routes that exist on either R3 or
>>> R4
>>> > that needs to get to each other, there is no need of full mesh peering.
>>> But
>>> > the general rule is if the reflection is suppressed I need to have a
>>> full
>>> > mesh..
>>> >
>>> > Any thoughts on this?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/ip/configuration/guide/1cfbgp.html#wp1001965
>>> >
>>> > -Hoogen
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Dec 03 2009 - 03:31:28 ART