On 12/Mar/18 19:14, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Hmm well ok, I guess if you have one set of static routes on RR1 and > one set of static routes/loopback on RR2 –then sure you might want to > use iBGP session between RR1 and RR2 for redundancy purposes (if say > the particular RR1 is the only place you originate the given route from) > > –but why not originating the same set of static routes/loopbacks out > of both RRs in this case? > All RR's originate consistently. > > > I mean in your case with common Cluster-ID on both RR1 and RR2 these > odd per-RR routes are the only thing exchanged over that iBGP session > anyways right? > Correct. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/