Tim Durack wrote: > We run iBGP confeds between 3 POPs (seems more natural than > route-relectors), redundant routers at every POP, topology is > essentially a big ring over L2 transport. > > iBGP sessions are between IGP loopbacks. (I always thought iBGP should > be between loopbacks, rather than interface addresses, that way > sessions survive link failures without effect.)
It's been 2-3 years since I abandoned confederations for route reflectors, and this is the first I've "looked back". I can't remember specifically, but I think you might want to consider the ieBGP sessions (between the sub-ASen) on interface addresses, to allow the (sub) AS path to guide path selection in the event of WAN link failures. > Is this correct, or is there an argument for iBGP between interface > addresses, making BGP more "aware" of the underlying topology? Maybe > it's a stupid question, but I haven't come up with a good answer > yet... FWIW, I switched from confederations to full mesh to route reflectors as we grew from four Riverstone routers to ~25 Cisco routers. Our network was much happier as a result. :) Feel free to ping me offline if there's any guidance I can provide. pt _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
