Peer groups allow a simpler configuration when you have more than just a few neighbors with similar outgoing routing policies. It also saves processor resources within the router because it will form updates more efficiently. For each peer group, the router only needs to construct a single update and then replicate that for each peer-group peer instead of constructing individual updates for each peer.
A confederation is an entirely different animal, altogether. In BGP, your internal peers must be fully meshed. This creates some serious scalability issues as the number of internal peers grows. One way to help alleviate this problem is to create virtual autonomous systems within your real autonomous system. Within each sub-AS the peers must still be fully meshed, but no similar requirement exists for connections to other sub-AS peers. Route reflectors are another method of alleviating this same problem. With RRs, BGP relaxes the rules regarding the forwarding of routes by iBGP peers. Normally, an iBGP peer will not forward routes to another iBGP, hence the need for a full mesh of iBGP peers. With RRs, you can select certain peers that _are_ allowed to forward routes to other peers, reducing the need for a full mesh. HTH, John >>> "Eric Waguespack" 3/18/02 2:16:42 AM >>> what is the difference between a bgp confederation and a bgp peer-group? are they both, in addition to route reflectors, all simply used to avoid having to do a full mesh? thanks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38659&t=38630 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
