From: Peter van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 08:37:57 GMT-3
Why is it that synch and route reflection aren't intended to work
together? Possibly because the former solves some potential routing issues
in non full ibgp mesh transit networks while the latter helps scaling
properties of full mesh ibgp network. ie, they are designed to be applying
to different networks (full mesh vs non full mesh)
When the answer to the question of dealing with route reflection in ospf
based networked is to partition the ospf backbone or fully reconfigure the
bgp topology I tend to doubt the validity of the question as these seem to
be pretty stretching solutions.
I'll look up your 6/6 answer to see if i'm missing anything.
At 08:30 AM 6/10/2002 -0300, Carlos G Mendioroz wrote:
>Why is that ???
>
>I've just (thursday 6/6) posted a way of "fixing" this using OSPF &
>BGP,
>namelly making the OSPF routing domain coincide with the BGP AS, by
>breaking it at the BGP borders (running 2 OSPF processes at the borders,
>one for intra-AS and the other for inter-AS).
>
>Other ways that have been talked about are turning into BGP confeds
>(thus
>getting rid of the iBGP sync issue) and tweeking the router IDs...
>
>Peter van Oene wrote:
> >
> > Synch and route reflection are not intended to work together.
> >
> > At 08:19 PM 6/9/2002 -0400, Yagnesh Patel wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >I know the following problem is frequently discussed in the group study
> > >but couldn't find any definite answers. Can someone please direct me to
> > >the possible solutions to this problem
> > >
> > >R2 ------IBGP-----R3 (RR)--------IBGP-------- R1 -----<EBGP>---------R4
> > >
> > >
> > >Sync is enabled in all router. R1's reflected routes are not sync in R2
> > >router.
> > >
> > >Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:30 GMT-3