RE: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
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=7i=30022t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
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=7i=29968t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
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 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=7i=29972t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
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=7i=29975t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
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. From my understanding of statements made at Networkers by CCIE program managers, this isn't going to be a problem for you. They've said the CCIE lab is NOT a design lab and is NOT intended to test best current practices. For ease in grading, labs tend to have only one possible answer, so it will be quite clear in context whether they are looking for a RR or confed. To answer the question a little more broadly, not from the CCIE labs but from such things as the advanced ISPs workshops, for an ISP, RRs, including hierarchical clusters of RRs, are generally preferred for ISPs. They are simpler and somewhat easier to configure than confeds. Confeds do have a role, however, when you need, for example, to be able to set per-POP policy. For that reason, confeds are quite useful for ISPs that have acquired other ISPs with different design assumptions. Confeds are also useful for complex enterprise backbones-of-backbones. 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=7i=29974t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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=7i=29986t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
Ready of not, like it or not, it appears to me that MPLS is the Next Big Thing in networking. I'm starting to hear customers ask about it - large enterprise customer to be sure. Why? Because it's more secure, and I don't want to have to depend on access lists on my routers for security MPLS adds no benefit for security, and also no longer offers any particular advantage in forwarding speed. It does have benefits, which include traffic engineering and additional fast restoration capabilities (e.g., comparable to SONET). In its newer instantiation as Generalized MPLS (GMPLS), it also offers a much cleaner control interface to pure optical and other transmission systems. But the absolutely key thing for people to understand is that MPLS does not replace IP, but provides additional capabilities to supplement some things IP does. Another thing to remember is it's not just IP and MPLS forwarding, but also the glue between them of path setup. There is increased interest in carrier-grade IPsec, possibly in conjunction with MPLS, for more secure applications. Not ready for prime time. As I roll my eyes. Guess I will just never be good at sales. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 7:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968] 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=7i=29983t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
The size of the network does have a role when choose between RR and Confeds. The BGP desgin for a POP is quite different than for the backbone, this is true no matter the size of the ISP. POPs are better place for RR where the backbone is better off with something else. If it is a purely dialup POP, you do not even need BGP within the POP, only the routers connecting to the regional or main backbone need to advertise your routes. A typical design could be having RR and IGP non-backbone area in each POP, making every POP in a Confeds and runing IGP backbone area across the whole BGP backbone network. Just my .02 Kent Yu Gregg Malcolm wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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=7i=29993t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RRs and Confeds as they relate to IE studies [7:29968]
The size of the network does have a role when choose between RR and Confeds. The BGP desgin for a POP is quite different than for the backbone, this is true no matter the size of the ISP. Well, yes. If the POPs have different policies, confeds may be useful. Otherwise, I think you'll find most ISPs use a hierarchy of RR's, with an intra-POP RR acting as a client of a higher-level RR closer to the core. Depending on your aggregation strategy, the POP may be a single IGP routing domain, or a non-backbone area of ISIS or OSPF. Large POPs may even contain multiple areas. The core itself may or may not contain BGP; it may use an IGP and MPLS. POPs are better place for RR where the backbone is better off with something else. If it is a purely dialup POP, you do not even need BGP within the POP, only the routers connecting to the regional or main backbone need to advertise your routes. Depends what the dialup POP is doing; there are lots of possibilities including having to be a L2TP proxy for regulatory reasons. A typical design could be having RR and IGP non-backbone area in each POP, making every POP in a Confeds and runing IGP backbone area across the whole BGP backbone network. I'm really not picturing the sort of policy that would call for this. Just my .02 Kent Yu Gregg Malcolm wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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=7i=29996t=29968 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
