>RR's are normally used in small to medium sized implementations. >Confederations are normally used in large implementations. I imagine on the >lab they'll give some clue as to which one is required. > >The k1d
It's not a matter of size; it's a matter of how much policy control you need. Most very large ISPs, with a homogeneous backbone design, use RRs. There is a lot of discussion of using BGP-free MPLS cores with RRs at the edge. > > > >""Kane, Christopher A."" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> I'm currently tearing apart BGP as part of my IE studies. It's not too bad >> since I come from a Network Service Provider background. But, I have run >> into a conflict in regards to RRs vs. Confeds. I probably don't need to >> straighten this out for the Written but when it comes to the lab I'd like >to >> know which route to go down. I have no idea how the lab poses it's >topology >> but if given the requirement to configure a simulated "large" network and >> then having to choose whether to implement RRs or Confeds I wonder which >one >> Cisco prefers. I'm assuming that as part of the lab, the idea is to create >> solutions that work and in doing so, solutions that are as simple as >> possible and as short as possible. >> >> I'd like to hear comments about the pros and cons of each option in >regards >> to how Cisco might prefer to see implementation. Meanwhile, I'm going to >> review all available case studies on CCO. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29975&t=29968 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
