> Of Alexander Marhold > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:19 AM > > >3. Non-clients which are also RRs in the same cluster (from which you > should reject updates based on the cluster-id attribute). > > NO, NO, NO this is the old way of doing redundant RRs Never do this as it can > lead to missing routing updates if a client A is connected to RR-1 only and > Client B connected to RR-2 only ( because of link > outages) > Therefore---- make each RR with a unique cluster-id ( recommended > identical to router-id ) and then you can either make a normal ibgp > connection between both RRs or each one is the client of the other one > OK THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG - Sorry can't look at this anymore...
netconsultings.com ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
