On Jan 9, 2008 10:56 AM, Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
That's what I had been thinking. > > 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. We are still small, so I would be interested to know why you went the confed -> rr path. We're not slinging full tables around, just our own global prefixes, and default from different providers. In the future we will likely be doing some L2/L3 MPLS VPN stuff, advertised through BGP. Thanks, Tim:> _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
