Stéphane Grosjean wrote:
>
> Okay, I can have a router to be RR for different clusters. Regarding the full
> mesh between the various RR, all in a different group without cluster
> definition is the best practice?
>
Yes - you should configure separate group for the full mesh between RRs.
An
13 décembre 2007 20:37
À : Stéphane Grosjean; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Objet : RE: [j-nsp] Route reflection design consideration
Unique cluster-IDs per RR is the best practice, and fully mesh the RRs. There
are corner cases where RRs with same cluster-IDs can cause a black-hole.
-Original
Salut Stephane
...
I have never tested this but I think it could work if you have of
course separated groups for the two clusters (it's not possible
another way)
If you have a look at the documentation:
"help topic bgp cluster"
...
To configure a router to be a route reflector, you must d
Hi folks,
I'm scratching my head with some RR configuration, and I'd like your feeling on
it. Is it correct to configure one router to be RR for different clusters? Does
it reflects correctly routes from one cluster to another?
Let's have an example: You have on one side a dual RR (router A an
4 matches
Mail list logo
