Alexander Marhold wrote: > >Instead you should not even connect RR1 and RR2 together > >And treat RR infrastructure built from RR1s I their respective clusters as > a > >separate infrastructure to RR2s. > >This is the proper way > > NO,NO,NO > This was the proper way in 1995, but not actual as... > (Unfortunately most BGP books have been written at that time and are still > sold...) > > 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) then A does not get the routes from B and vice versa > > 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
But in this scenario, a client will send an update both to RR1 and RR2, and RR1 will reflect this update to RR2, and RR2 will reflect it to RR1, and voila! We have a routing loop. > > There are nice explanations on the Internet backing me up ( Ivan Peplnjak, > http://packetpushers.net/bgp-rr-design-part-1/ > http://orhanergun.net/2015/02/bgp-route-reflector-clusters/ Thanks, will read those. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN AS43859 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp