[77019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IBGP Question --- Router Reflector or iBGP Mesh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Jan 11 08:10:38 2005
In-Reply-To: <41E3BDC8.5090903@cisco.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:10:04 +0100
To: Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 11-jan-05, at 12:51, Philip Smith wrote:
> Well, my preference is to start with route reflectors pretty much from
> day one. Let's face it, one day you will have to migrate that full
> mesh iBGP to route reflector. Why do the work of migration when you
> can start off at the beginning using route reflectors. One less job to
> do, one less potential network disruption, happy customers,...
You're assuming it's disruptive to add route reflection...
The trouble with doing this very early is that the reflectors may end
up in inconvenient places. And since you need at least two for
redundancy, you don't save much in a three or four router setup.
> As for guidelines for transition, check out the BGP tutorials which
> have been given at the recent NANOGs. It's really very simple to do,
> and you are lucky as you have relatively few routers to migrate.
Yup, very simple: just create two peergroups on the reflectors: one for
reflectors and permanently non-client peers and another one for
clients. Then assign iBGP peers to the peergroups and you're done.
You'll still have some now unnecessary iBGP links between clients but
that's ok: no need to remove them.
