I've read Doyle Vol II. Now I'm reading Caslow. I've flipped through Halabi's book. He actually has a statement regarding RR vs. Confed. According to Halabi, "Cisco recommends RRs to solve the full-mesh IBGP issue." It would seem that RRs are easier to implement if you take into account that only the RRs need to have their configuration altered. The Clients of the RRs take the neighbor statement as nothing more than an IBGP peer.
One of the responders recommended Parkhurst's book. Yes I have it. But haven't gotten to it yet. Since it's all config examples I am saving it for a wrap up of my BGP studies. Could we make a list of pros/cons to each? Or what solution each implementation offers? RR = possibly less config, only RR is altered (in the neighbor statement) RR = continues to offer loop prevention with use of Cluster_List and Cluster_ID RR = solves the need to have full-mesh IBGP RR = Question, are RR solutions easy to troubleshoot/maintain? Confeds = offers chance to create a backbone of backbones Confeds = use of Private ASs Confeds = allows implementation of an IGP between confeds for further policy implementation Confeds = adds complexity when considering route announcements and behavior of EBGP as an IBGP Confeds = Question, are Confed solutions easy to troubleshoot/maintain? Any other thoughts? Chris -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Malcolm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968] Good question. I don't claim to be an expert on BGP and will not comment on the advantages and disadvantages of RR/Confeds in large/small environments. I've only config'ed BGP once in a prod net. Seems to me tho that there is an important distinction between the two as they might pertain to the lab test. Both allow the use of weight and local preference (IBGP). Confeds allow the use of MED since the connections between the confeds is EBGP. You could also config multiple RR's (clusters) to allow the use of the MED between the clusters but to me, confeds are easier. I'm sure that there are other reasons to use one or the other as they relate to the lab, but I haven't run into it yet. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my take on RR's/confeds. Would love to hear comments to enlighten me. ""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=30022&t=29968 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
