[117483] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dedicated Route Reflectors
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pshem Kowalczyk)
Mon Sep 14 20:36:55 2009
In-Reply-To: <342977.61377.qm@web53611.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
From: Pshem Kowalczyk <pshem.k@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:35:15 +1200
To: Serge Vautour <serge@nbnet.nb.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
There are multiple ways you can solve that problem. We do the following:
1. Each region has its own ibgp cluster with 2 route reflectors
(usually the P nodes, since they seem to have abundance of CPU power
and not much to do with it).
2. All route reflectors (across regions) are fully meshed. We thought
a bit about creating two 'super' route servers, but then then number
of adjecencies is not that big ( we only have a few regions ).
Regarding internet traffic - we keep the Internet in a VPN, all PEs
that host that VPN are fully meshed and advertise only a default to
the common route reflectors (in their corresponding regions). Each
internet PE uses different RD, so there are multiple default routes
present in the regions.
kind regards
Pshem
2009/9/12 Serge Vautour <sergevautour@yahoo.ca>:
> Hello,
>
> We're in the process of planning for an MPLS network that will use BGP fo=
r signaling between PEs. This will be a BGP free Core (i.e. no BGP on the P=
routers). What are folks doing for iBGP in this case? Full Mesh? Full Mesh=
the Main POP PEs and Route Reflect to some outlining PEs? Are folks using =
dedicated/centralized Route Reflectors (redundant of course)? What about us=
ing some of the P routers as the Centralized Route Reflectors? The boxes ar=
en't doing much from a Control Plane perspective, why not use them as Route=
Reflectors.
>
> Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Serge
>
>
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_____________________________________________________=
_____________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
>
