[37136] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: GSR Route Reflector: maximum number of clients?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Wed May 2 00:38:53 2001
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:30:13 -0700
From: Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>
To: James DeMong <James.DeMong@telus.com>
Cc: "'Nanog@Merit.Edu'" <Nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20010501213013.B67151@routingloop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <23D5B89EC7B4D311821400805F85082C02EAAB3C@tac-nt6.ab.tac.net>; from James.DeMong@telus.com on Tue, May 01, 2001 at 01:31:27PM -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Something like 40 iBGP peering sessions should be doable in most
circumstances. Mileage will vary significantly as a function
of:
physical topology
RR Topology
policy (routes, dampening, etc..)
stability
.. and other things
Adding a tertiary box such as a 7206 or some such box as a BGP
route reflector may work fine -- but can give rise to improper
routing information. (esp. wrt route selection)
In general, one wants the routing information (control plane)
to follow the forwarding path (data plane) as closely as
possible.
-alan
Thus spake James DeMong (James.DeMong@telus.com)
on or about Tue, May 01, 2001 at 01:31:27PM -0600:
>
> I have a GSR 12008 that is acting as a route reflector and core router.
> What is the practical maximum (from an operational standpoint) number of
> clients it can support? (My Cisco sources tell me that the maximum
> technically possible is large and does not significantly impact the
> operation the forwarding of the GSR.)
>
> In terms of manageability and simplicity, is it more favourable to have a
> separate box (e.g. 7206 VXR) handle the route reflector job?
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
>
> James
> __
> James DeMong
> Network Design Specialist
> TELUS Advanced Communications
> Phone: (403) 503-3718
> Email: James.DeMong@telus.com
